David Price

[John Bassett, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the flag over the Peace Tower flies at half mast today in honour of a great Canadian.

John Bassett passed away Monday after a lengthy illness. He left an indelible mark on the Canadian landscape. John Bassett served as major in the Black Watch Regiment during World War II. He was a media pioneer, a sports enthusiast, a businessman and a Tory.

When I was 11 years old John Bassett, who was a friend of the family, gave me my first job bundling inserts for his first newspaper, the daily Sherbrooke Record .

A graduate of Bishop's University in Lennoxville, Quebec, my hometown, John Bassett ran for office for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada on two occasions.

He was once a proud owner of interests in both the Toronto Maple Leafs and the Toronto Argonauts. John was a member of the privy council, a companion of the Order of Canada and the Order of Ontario.

On the behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada I convey my condolences to his wife Isabelle and their family.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to call for quorum. There seems to be a lack of respect on the other side of the House for people speaking.

[Bosnia, April 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, this evening I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Chicoutimi.

I am pleased to speak today on the issue of whether Canadian troops should renew their participation in the NATO led stabilization force or what is better known as SFOR. Indeed my party, the party that when in government first ensured Canadian troops would participate in the former Yugoslavia under the UN banner, is in favour of the present government's intention to renew Canadian participation now under the NATO banner and beyond the current June 20 deadline.

Let there be no mistake about it. The debate we entered into tonight has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Prime Minister is interested in the opinions of the other parties. It has everything to do with optics.

After this debate and when this issue is raised in the public eye the Prime Minister will surely declare that there was a debate in the House, that all parties took part and that everyone had a say.

That is not the case. For the record I would like to read the motion put forward by the government, the one we are debating this evening:

That this House take note of the intention of the Government of Canada to renew its participation in the NATO-led stabilization force—

“Take note of the government's intentions”. That is what we are doing tonight. This is an important debate and my party will make its voice heard.

The first point I will make is that this should not be a take note debate. If the government had courage it would make this a votable motion the way it should be. However the government has no courage and no understanding. If it had either, the Prime Minister would not have felt it necessary to make this evening's vote on whether to compensate all victims who contracted hepatitis C because of tainted blood a vote of confidence.

The Prime Minister of Canada is not confident that his government is doing the right thing. He does not have the courage to stand behind his government's decision. Instead he had to use the authority of the whip to put his party's government in line. That is not a courageous thing to do.

It is appropriate that I talk about courage tonight. If the men and women who will be affected by the government's policy to extend Canada's participation in SFOR have only one thing, it is courage. As we represent Canadians in the Chamber they represent Canada in uniform, carrying a gun and risking their lives in a far off place that many Canadians cannot even find on the map. They are armed with courage. I am sure they expect no less from the government they are serving.

Unfortunately the current government always disappoints in the department of courage. Did it take courage to whip government backbenchers into line for tonight's hepatitis C vote? No. Did it take courage last week when Canada abstained from a crucial United Nations vote condemning the forced recruitment of child soldiers in Uganda? No. Did it take courage for the Prime Minister to stand beside the Cuban dictator in Havana while he compared the current American embargo to the murder of six million Jewish lives during World War II's Holocaust and not say anything, not a word? No.

The government will always make excuses after the fact but it has never shown courage at the appropriate time. The foreign minister, an individual who while highly educated has not one clue about the lessons this century has taught, has since confessed that a mistake was made when Canada abstained from the UN vote. That is simply not good enough.

This is a fearful government that celebrates easy decisions and avoids the difficult ones. In fact the only reason we are here tonight is that the Prime Minister does not have the courage to stand up to the Canadian public and say bluntly that Canadians are staying in Bosnia longer than expected because if they do not stay we risk losing all that has been achieved.

Instead the Prime Minister will appear before the Canadian public and say that parliament decided to extend Canadian involvement. Even though it was the Prime Minister's decision—and by the way it was a good one—he does not have the courage to stand and say it was his decision just in case there are Liberals out there who might not agree with him. Instead he will hide behind tonight's meaningless take note debate.

When I said that if there were one thing Canadian soldiers would be bringing with them to Bosnia it would be courage, I did not mean to exaggerate. The government has cut the defence budget by 30% in the last five years. That is taking its toll. It is taking its toll on equipment and on training. As the defence committee travelled from base to base this spring we found that it was taking its toll on the simple quality of life that my party believes soldiers should enjoy.

Yet, while the government expects Canada's forces to jump when the Prime Minister gives the word and while the dedicated people who make up the Canadian forces will always respond when the government calls, the government abuses the forces. The government abuses the force's dedication to the country.

I cannot think of a more disgusting waste of talent and dedicated men and women than to abuse their dedication by not providing them with the equipment, training and resources they need to do their job.

If the government continues this trend of abusing the Canadian military there will come a time when the Prime Minister says “okay, boys, it's time to go” and the response will come “I am sorry, sir, but we can't perform that mission”.

The answer will come, not because they will not want to perform their particular mission, not because they do not want to come to the aid of Canada, but because their government has let them down and they no longer have the equipment to do the job. That day will come, sooner than one would think unless the government begins to show the smallest ounce of courage and do its most fundamental job, protect Canadians.

I urge the Prime Minister, as I am sure the current Minister of National Defence has done behind closed doors, to stop abusing the Canadian forces, to show some courage in leadership and to give them the resources they need to do their job, this time in Bosnia.

We have already heard tonight good reasons why Canada must extend its stay in Bosnia. Good work has been started and must continue. To leave now would be to abandon all that has been accomplished, but there is another reason that has not yet been pointed out in the Chamber. It was hardly mentioned.

This issue came before the committee in November. When I mentioned it at the committee to the NATO ambassadors they were frank with me. NATO is undergoing change. There will be three new member countries and, to his credit, the Prime Minister was on the right side of the issue when it came to expanding NATO. However, to be honest, NATO's role will have to be adjusted somewhat if it is to continue being effective in this post-cold war era.

The role of NATO and whether NATO should be expanded further or at all, or whether NATO should even exist, are issues that will continue to be debated. In fact they were being debated this week on the floor of the United States Senate.

It is not my intent to enter into that debate tonight, but it is important to note that while the world debates the current usefulness of NATO all eyes are on Bosnia and the current NATO forces there.

If NATO were to fail in its stated mission of implementing the Dayton accord, the voices of those who would have NATO disband will grow louder. For that reason and others mentioned here tonight, my party supports the decision already taken by the Prime Minister to renew Canada's participation in the NATO led stabilization force beyond June 20, 1998 in order to maintain a safe environment for reconstruction, reconciliation and a lasting peace for the people of Bosnia.

My party's only concern with tonight's take note motion is that the government expects Canada's soldiers to show more courage than it ever has. We should all be thankful that the men and women who wear Canada's uniform are up for the job.

[The Late Carlo Rossi, April 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative caucus wishes to express its most sincere condolences to the Rossi family.

He was known as a man who kept his word. His courage as a police officer in Montreal for more than 30 years and his dedication to the public service as a member of the House are examples to all of us. His community was always a priority.

In saluting the life of Carlo Rossi we recognize the support given to him by his family. That love and that support helped him serve the people of his riding, the city of Montreal and all of Canada through his active membership in the House of Commons. We are grateful to them and to Mr. Rossi. Canada is a better place because of the contributions he made during his life.

We are grateful to him and to his family. Canada is a better place because of his lifelong contribution.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, after the member's 14 years experience in the Liberal government, what advice would he be able to give his former colleagues and backbenchers on how they might approach the Prime Minister this weekend to get him to change his mind?

[National Defence, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is not really shedding light on the subject; rather it is closing the blinds on it. I will try again.

What knowledge did the Minister of National Defence have of Serco's multimillion dollar contract winning bid? Why did the British company that promised to cut jobs, benefits and salaries at Goose Bay beat out Canadian companies that promised not to cut jobs and to invest millions at the base? I ask the minister, why did Serco win the Liberal lottery?

[National Defence, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, members may be aware that a multimillion dollar government contract for CFB Goose Bay is being gift wrapped and presented by the Minister of National Defence today to a British company called Serco, a long shot bidder. In fact it is the only bidder that promised to cut jobs and kill investment in Goose Bay.

Can the minister shed some light on this rather shady deal?

[Lennoxville, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak of pride, the pride of Lennoxville, a small municipality in the beautiful eastern townships of southern Quebec with 6,000 citizens, and the pride of Bishop's, a small but beautiful university in Lennoxville with 1,700 students from all across Canada.

You see, yesterday in Halifax one of Canada's smallest universities won the Canadian university national basketball championships for the first time, a dream come true.

Last year Chatelaine magazine listed Lennoxville as one of the top 10 cities in Canada for all around sports.

A couple of years earlier, Lennoxville was named one of the 10 best places to live in Canada.

Mayor Doug Macauly and university chancellor Alex Patterson and over 200 anglophone and francophone fans travelled to Halifax to cheer our Bishop's Gators to glory.

We are a community that supports our people and institutions. We are what Canada is all about, proud to be Canadian.

[Reserve Force Act, March 23rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this bill, the reserve force act. As I see it this act was designed to facilitate service in the reserves of Canada's armed forces.

I am in agreement with the idea behind this bill. This is a very real issue of operating and training and recognizes that our reservists are a crucial element of the Canadian forces. Canada gets 24% of its soldiers from the reserve for only 3% of its budget. More training means more expertise for our reservists and more expertise means stronger Canadian forces.

I was in the reserves as a young man. I am likely in this Chamber today as a direct result of lessons learned.

However as with much of what the Reform Party does in this House, this bill has not been properly thought through. There are some real dangers in this bill that have to be considered. When I say dangers, I mean dangers to the Canadian forces.

I am quite sure the Reform Party has not thought of this but if this bill were to pass, it would be a further excuse for this Liberal government, a government with no respect for the Canadian forces, to further cut regular forces. It would give the government an opportunity to say “We have these well-trained reservists. We are a peace loving nation. We have priorities, we can now get rid of our regular force”.

I do not know about the Reform Party but my party refuses to allow the Liberal Party any more excuses to cut the defence department's budget. It has already been cut by 25% since the Liberals took office. As we have seen in the defence committee, this has had negative effects on the military's ability to perform. It has also had a grave effect on the state of morale in our forces. My party will not give the Liberal government any more reason to further cut the defence budget.

I will talk briefly about the practical effects of this bill, the effects it will have if implemented and the way it stands now. I am thinking of a postmaster in one of my 39 small municipalities. Could he or she leave for two months? Because of this government's downsizing, there is not enough staff to rotate. Will he leave and the mail will not be delivered for two months, or does the Reform Party expect this Liberal government to pay for a replacement for two months?

In my own riding I know of several government employees who are officers in the reserve. One man is the commanding officer of the Sherbrooke Hussars. He is in charge of maintenance of all school buildings in the municipality. In his job it would be nothing short of impossible for him to leave for two months. Granted, he has worked out a very good arrangement with the school board.

I welcome the opportunity to meet the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla to further discuss the bill and I look forward to it coming up in committee.

[Canadian Armed Forces, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister of defence for taking my party's advice and finally having our men and women who are now in the gulf vaccinated for anthrax.

Canadians who have served under the flag of the United Nations in the Golan Heights since 1967 are in the direct line of fire of any attack on Israel by Saddam's anthrax. Why are these Canadians not being vaccinated for anthrax?