Lost his last election, in 2006, with 22% of the vote.
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act October 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is reading between the lines.
For sure the world is not a safer place because we have more nuclear weapons. We have to reduce nuclear weapons and they will be reduced over a period of time. It will not happen overnight.
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act October 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I am not clear what exactly he was asking. It was more a statement than a question.
There is no question that if we knew what would happen in the next 15 years it would be very easy to sign on and agree solidly with something. We can look very clearly down the road to see what is coming in the immediate future. We see that a threat is still there. It will not go away tomorrow.
The problem is not the countries that have signed the treaty; it is the countries that have not signed the treaty. An arms sale is still going on in the background. We cannot eliminate ours if they are going to be out there. The threat is still there.
We lived through all the years of the cold war. There were no nuclear explosions because one counteracted the other. We are still in that position. We are not in a cold war situation. We might say it is a bit hotter war right now.
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act October 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, to the member for Burnaby—Douglas, the very simple answer is yes. I will leave it at that.
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act October 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member very much for the question. That is one thing I did not actually raise in my speech.
The Russians have 30,000 weapons. With the economic situation in Russia that creates the desire for them, instead of scrapping weapons, to probably try to sell them off. There will definitely be a market. We would be happy to do anything we could to get together with a group to try to find a solution to this problem.
Unfortunately, as I have said, the Russians will not scrap them. They will try to sell them. The people they will be selling them to obviously are not the major nuclear forces. They will be as I said before the rogues. That is where the danger lies. Again, I would be very happy to work on any project like that.
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act October 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. Actually I could go a lot further than that and say the long term goal is total elimination of nuclear armaments of any kind.
In the meantime—and this is not in the short term—we are still stuck with the dangers out there, with the rogue countries that will develop nuclear arms. If they are sitting there with nuclear arms we need a deterrent. As I mentioned, the Americans are still looking at their star wars project right now because they know they have to protect themselves. They need an alternative.
The long term view is that we would be very happy to see them completely gone, but in the short term that will not happen so we still have to keep them as a deterrent. Hopefully over a period of time we will eliminate them.
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act October 6th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand today in the House and speak to such an important issue, nuclear weapons testing.
Successive Canadian governments have advocated the need for a truly comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty for many years. The Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests in May of this year truly brought home to all of us that the proliferation of nuclear arms is still an issue for the international community.
We as Conservatives encourage and support any effort that will help make the world a safer place to live in. That is why we support the implementation of Bill C-52 which, once ratified by parliament, will allow Canada to ratify the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty that the government signed on September 24, 1996.
The test ban treaty will make it a crime to test nuclear weapons in the countries that have signed. It will also require industries to report large chemical explosions which could be confused with a nuclear explosion also in the countries that have signed.
Bill C-52 also helps define the roles of different departments, such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Natural Resources Canada and Health Canada, which will jointly administer the implementation of the test ban treaty in Canada. There are a couple of questions to go along with this.
Why is the test ban treaty a good thing? The nuclear powers, the U.S., France, Britain, Russia and China, will not expand their arsenals, at least we should not say all because China seems to be expanding a bit. But it does give the smaller countries a little less incentive to build nuclear weapons. It maintains the status quo.
Why is the status quo a good thing? Since World War II the big five have influenced the world and maintained relative stability and stability is a good thing. It allows economies to grow without worrying about these threats. We all know what has happened to the economies of countries that have gotten into these serious threats.
On the other hand, why would it be risky to maintain the status quo? As we know there are some countries which do not like the status quo. They think there is some benefit to being part of a nuclear club. India and Pakistan tested in May. They want to be part of this new status quo. Iraq, Iran and North Korea all want to test nuclear weapons. We must go further to discourage them and to rid them of these notions.
This makes security an issue. The foreign affairs committee is preparing a report which calls for the rid of all nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are not land mines. They are a deterrent weapon that won the cold war. Let us not kid ourselves. Asking the defence communities to get rid of nukes is like asking society to get rid of cars. We have relied on them for too long.
This bill does not even mention the Department of National Defence. I am speaking because I am the defence critic. The Department of National Defence must be involved because the defence of a nation is not just the job of our hippie foreign minister.
Although India, Pakistan and North Korea have yet to sign on to the treaty, it remains a positive measure toward better nuclear arms control in the world. By ratifying the test ban treaty, Canada will be part of implementing an international monitoring system to detect nuclear explosions throughout the world, thus creating deterrents to clandestine development of nuclear weapons.
The implementation of the test ban treaty will also provide the opportunity for the international community to quickly conduct an inspection where there are doubts about the credibility of a member state.
There are a few more things I would like to point out. Canada suspended nuclear co-operation with India following its first nuclear test in 1974. Canada also ended bilateral nuclear co-operation with India and Pakistan in 1976 when neither country would agree to the requirements of Canada's nuclear non-proliferation policy.
As we negotiate other Candu sales do I have to remind the Liberal government what happened after Canada sold its Candu reactors to Indian and Pakistan? The Liberals would like us to believe that Canada has nothing to do with helping India and Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons. Of course they were in power when those sales were made. They gave them the technology for peaceful purposes. They built clones. We know the rest of the story.
What we are seeing today is a Liberal government which at the same time it is revising the Canadian nuclear policy to prop up its image is negotiating sales of Candu reactors to countries that might just end up doing what India and Pakistan did with their Candu reactors. In May 1998 the world saw what we mean when we talk about incompetence.
I remind our foreign minister, who still likes to call himself a hippie, that nuclear weapons are a serious threat to Canadian security. Love and flowers will not stop that threat. Saying otherwise only demonstrates little understanding and knowledge of what really goes on in the world. Canadians might have been led to believe that the world is a safer place. The reality is that it is not.
Last week I watched the United States Senate arms service committee talk about the military problems in the States. It was quite interesting. They parallel a lot to our problems, what we have been dealing with for the last little while: quality of life and lack of money. They are the same types of issues.
At the end of the day when they look at the more serious problems they are worried about as to how they are going to keep up their equipment and still be stuck in one of their major points, the main thing they will be looking at is their strategic defence initiative, the famous star wars project. That is major money.
We are looking down the road with a lot of time ahead. Yet they are still considering this project. It is a very strong item in their defence budget. That means a ring of missiles completely around the States. They are certainly not putting that in because they think the nukes are going to go away. Unfortunately, if they start firing these missiles, they will more than likely be firing them over the top of Canada. Nukes will be dropping in on us.
This issue is a lot more complicated and volatile than the Minister of Foreign Affairs would like us to believe. I am not implying that as a country we should not work toward nuclear disarmament. On the contrary I am saying that we have to do it in a credible way. We have to take into account the context of current world events and security issues. When 76% of Canadians support a leadership role for Canada in the world negotiations on nuclear weapons non-proliferation, they want their government to look credible, not gullible.
Canada is a longstanding and respected member of NATO and a well respected member of the world community. We have a longstanding partnership with countries such as the U.S., France and Britain with which we have forged a good relationship and developed mutual understanding on issues such as nuclear arms control and nuclear disarmament.
To the Minister of Foreign Affairs I only have this to say: be very careful; nuclear weapons are not land mines. The minister asked for the full support of the House on the committee report. I am sorry he raised the committee report today because in my party's opinion the test ban treaty is a worthwhile endeavour. However my party should be forthright. Nuclear weapons are not land mines. Indeed my party supported the minister's efforts in the land mine treaty and congratulate him on his success.
Certainly we are in favour of stopping proliferation. Certainly we are in favour of arms control. The world has been, is currently and will be a dangerous place. Ridding our security system—and let me be clear—and calling for the U.S. to rid itself of its weapons in Europe is gutting our security system and will make the globe more dangerous, not safer.
The minister talks about 50 years ago. Perhaps he should talk about 50 years from now. Nuclear weapons have been the steadfast cornerstone of western security policy since the creation of NATO in 1949. Unless the minister can outline in the House with detail all the security risks the globe will encounter in the next 50 years, my party cannot support the idea of total nuclear disarmament.
While it is certainly an idealistic view, it is not based on reality. The reality is the Russian parliament will not implement START II any time soon. To delude ourselves that the Russians are is very dangerous. The reality is the Chinese are developing more nuclear weapons, not less. To delude ourselves that they are not is also very dangerous.
My party is in favour of making the world safer, not making it more dangerous.
National Defence October 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has learned that Boeing has made an offer to loan the government search and rescue helicopters until the time the new ones arrive. Will this government be accepting this generous offer?
National Defence October 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, as members know, the crash of a search and rescue helicopter cost six Canadian Armed Forces members their lives last Friday. This is a tragedy.
Knowing that an investigation is under way, I offer the Minister of National Defence an opportunity to tell us when the House will be informed of the investigation results and of the contents of Master Corporal David Gaetz's journal. What sort of assistance is being given to the families and what will be done to prevent future such catastrophes?
The Late Hon. Lucien Lamoureux September 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus join with me in offering our most sincere condolences to the Lamoureux family.
The hon. Lucien Lamoureux made a great contribution to our country during his years of public service. His greatest mark, of course, was left as Speaker of this House.
He was actively involved in his party before his election as Speaker, and after his years in the House of Commons this proud Franco-Ontarian represented his country as Canadian ambassador, first to Belgium and then to Portugal.
Less than a year ago, I had the honour and pleasure of spending an hour in Mr. Lamoureux' company. In his capacity as honorary Colonel of the Canadian NATO contingent, he had welcomed me on my visit to the military base in Geilenkirchen, Germany. This title of honorary colonel was but one of many he received throughout his career. He was very proud of his responsibilities within NATO and spoke with great eloquence about our soldiers working so hard in another country.
Lucien Lamoureux was a legend in his own time. The standards of impartiality and integrity he imposed from the Chair of this House, and his stringent adherence to the rules while a representative in this House, left a path for his successors to follow. Following on the example he set, the House requires very high standards of its speakers.
Today I would like to thank the Lamoureux family for sharing him with Parliament and with this great country of Canada he loved so much. He left a great heritage, one of which his family can continue to be justly proud for many generations to come.
Fusiliers De Sherbrooke September 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, for nearly 20 years now, the Fusiliers de Sherbrooke have been connected with an important annual fundraising event for the Fondation du Centre universitaire de santé de l'Estrie. Over the years, this foundation has collected over $15,000 at this event, which is held at the Sherbrooke armoury.
This year, the foundation is being penalized by the totally unacceptable behaviour that took place at a regimental dinner held by the Fusiliers on September 12. Until the investigation into these incidents is completed, the armoury cannot be used for social events.
Let us look at this objectively. The community ought not to be punished because a few individuals acted in an unacceptable manner. I am asking the minister to look into this matter, which merits special attention, and to take the necessary steps to allow the foundation to hold its fundraising event as planned.