David Price

[Canadian Armed Forces, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, our soldiers in the gulf have finally received their vaccine against anthrax. However, our sources at the Pentagon inform us that the anthrax vaccine was tainted while being shipped to the gulf.

What information can the minister add? Can he assure this House that the vaccine taken by Canadians is 100% effective and safe?

[Annie Perrault, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to read a letter of congratulations to Annie Perreault.

“Dear Annie:

“I was so proud to see you climb up to the highest step on the podium on February 19. I avidly followed the Olympic Games. Not only was our country represented by its best athletes, but the riding of Compton—Stanstead had its own special representative: Annie Perreault.

“I congratulate you on the medals you so deservedly won. You are finally reaping the reward of years of efforts. Your talent and your willpower are a source of inspiration to all those who aspire to the Olympic Games.

“I thank you, Annie, for so ably representing our country. I hope in the weeks and months to come you may enjoy all the opportunities your exploits bring you.

“You, Annie, are one great Canadian”.

[National Defence, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are not scaremongering. We are asking serious questions.

I have here the vaccine manufacturer's instructions to the U.S. forces. It states:

If a person has not previously been immunized against anthrax, injection of this product following exposure—will not protect against infection.

Sending the Toronto within missile range is totally irresponsible, especially when there is complete protection available. I beg the minister to reconsider and hold Toronto until the vaccine takes full 100% effect.

[National Defence, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister of National Defence said he was sending the Toronto within missile range with the crew partially immunized against anthrax.

It is not like 1991 when Canada played an important role. The government has cut the military so much in the last four years that now we are only there for moral support. We are sending one 30 year old helicopter so there is no rush.

Will the minister assure Canadians that the Toronto will not enter missile range until the vaccine has taken full 100% effect?

[Anthrax Vaccine, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has just said that our troops will be inoculated, but we have learned that the reason Canadian troops are not being inoculated for anthrax is because the vaccine has not yet been passed by Health Canada.

The Prime Minister is sending Canadians to the region precisely because Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons. Will the Prime Minister assure all Canadians that our forces will be protected, including vaccination against anthrax, and order the vaccine to be approved and made available?

[Anthrax Vaccine, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, noxious gases were used against Canadian troops for the first time during World War I.

Today, Saddam Hussein has stocks of anthrax. American troops have been vaccinated against anthrax.

Is it true that the crew of the Canadian ship

Toronto

could not be vaccinated because this vaccine has yet to be approved by Health Canada?

[Middle East, February 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with my hon. colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska.

It is with a sense of regret that I rise before this House today because today the Government of Canada has agreed to send troops into harm's way. Do not get me wrong, I have learned the lessons this century has taught. I understand that when tyranny is permitted to reign the entire world is in danger. I understand that when freedom is confronted with danger, action must be taken. It is not this government's decision that offends Canadians, it is the way this decision was made.

Last week in this House my party put forward a motion to have a debate in this House as to whether Canada would participate in a U.S. led action against Iraq. The government turned down the motion and dismissed it as hypothetical. The Minister of Foreign Affairs went on national television and said: “You can't make a decision until you know what is being decided”. It is words like those that instil confidence in the hearts of all Canadians.

Now we know what has been decided upon. Unfortunately for this House and, more important, unfortunately for all Canadians, what was decided came not from the Prime Minister's office. Canada's decision came directly from the White House in Washington D.C. Now, as all Canadians are aware, it is because President Clinton phoned the Prime Minister to ask for a favour that we meet in this Chamber to discuss what our nation's role should be.

It is not because the Prime Minister understood last week that there was a perilous situation growing in the Persian Gulf that might affect the lives of young Canadians. It is not because the Prime Minister has foresight that we are here. It is not because the Prime Minister wants to take a stand for what is right that we are here. We are here because President Bill Clinton asked the Prime Minister to do him a favour.

We are thankful that the Prime Minister has finally understood that Canada should have a role, that there are dangers in the world and obliged the president. Our only concern is that Canada's leaders do not have the understanding or the courage to assure Canadians what our role will be.

Tonight's debate in this Chamber is an excellent example of how this Liberal government simply does not respect the people it represents. We have entered into a debate over the most important decision a government will ever have to make, whether to send Canada's young men and women into harm's way. Remember that the government agreed to the American request because there is a danger in the region, there is a threat of war. As much as it is a terrible thought, when there is a war there is a danger of people dying.

This government thinks this is a serious enough matter to send Canadians into harm's way but it does not think it is serious enough to introduce a votable motion for tonight's debate. It does not think it is serious enough to allow members to question government ministers and this government does not think sending young Canadians into harm's way is important enough to ensure that at least 20 members are in this Chamber to debate this issue.

I rose to speak about Canada's preparedness for this mission. I wanted to ask the government what forces Canada had and if they would be ready to go. I have so many questions for this government but it will not answer. For example, the 1994 white paper on defence calls for the Canadian forces to be able to deploy a joint task force headquarters and a naval task group, three separate battle groups or a brigade group, a wing of fighter aircraft and one squadron of tactical transport aircraft. I wanted to ask this government if it had fulfilled these white paper requirements and if Canada had these forces in place, but there is nobody on the government side to answer.

I wanted to ask if we had land forces available and, if so, what units? Do we have air forces available and, if so, what units? Do we have sea forces available and, if so, what units? There is nobody on the government side of the House to answer my questions and they are relevant questions.

For example, what is the status of our biological and chemical defence? Do we have an antidote on hand for anthrax and VX gas? How many Canadian forces personnel have recently completed the desert warfare course? What is the extent of our nuclear, biological and chemical weapons defences?

I do not raise these questions to scare Canadians. I raise these questions so the government will have the opportunity to reassure our forces and their families that Canada's government is looking out for them and will take all the required measures to ensure that they will be as safe as possible. I wonder why the prime minister has not reminded this House that the first time poison gas was used in warfare was against the Canadian troops in World War I.

We are sending troops to a region because Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons. I hope this government understands its responsibility. Yet, we know that these decisions are tough for this Liberal government. Time ran out when the president phoned. The government does not have time to take a public opinion poll. A request is on the table that the prime minister cannot duck. There is no place to hide. He will have to make a decision and he will have to act.

While there is no place to hide, there is a place to stand. On principle. This is not familiar ground with this Liberal government. It is new for this government, especially when standing on principle happens to mean standing with Britain and the United States.

Let me try to be helpful. Let us make things easier for the government. It does not have to declare its support for the United States. Instead, it can declare its support for the United Nations, for the rule of law and for the principles of civilized, responsible state behaviour.

Iraq is an aggressor. It was punished in 1991 and it remains outside the community of nations because it refuses to meet its obligations under UN security council resolutions. Those resolutions remain in force to this day.

Therefore, the choice of the government should not have been so tough. It can put Canada on the side of those who take the 1991 UN resolutions on Iraq seriously, including the enforcement of those resolutions, or it can put Canada on the side of those who want to minimize the importance of the United Nations.

Being on the side of principle will not burden or diminish military too much. After all, we have been asked to make a reasonably small contribution to the effort and support of the integrity of those security council resolutions.

Is this government prepared to take those resolutions seriously or it is prepared to see them continuously ignored?

It has never been clear to us on this side of the House whether it is the Liberal view that Canada should always look the other way or that Canada should align itself with those whose belief, when faced with lawlessness, is that it is always better to wait and talk and, when faced with real trouble, stick one's head in the sand. If so, it would be consistent with where they have been in the past on this very issue.

After all, it was the prime minister who, when he was leader of the opposition, called for all Canadian forces to return to Canada as soon as the first shots in the 1991 gulf war were fired. I hope the courage he is displaying today will remain with him if diplomacy does fail and if shots are fired again. He will need courage. All of Canada and all of the world will need courage because when shots are fired there is no telling how Saddam will respond. That is precisely why Canada must take part.

Standing on principle is new territory for the leader of the Liberal Party. However, if he stands strong, my party will be his ally, and all those who love justice will side with him and he will see that his footing will be strong.

As Canada embarks on this journey with its allies, I want to take this opportunity to assure all those who love peace in Compton-Stanstead, across Quebec, in Canada and around the world that the lessons of this century have not been forgotten. When tyranny is permitted to reign, the entire world is in danger. When freedom is confronted with danger, action must be taken. Have confidence that Canada is on the good side.

[Iraq, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of National Defence said it was premature to discuss Canada's state of readiness.

Suddenly, less than a week later, the minister felt confident enough, and before checking with parliament, to tell the prime minister to commit Canadian troops and equipment to a U.S. led military strike on Iraq.

What information does the minister have today on our state of readiness that was not available just last week?

[Ice Storm 1998, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for sharing his speaking time with me.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the people of my riding, Compton-Stanstead, the people who gave their knowledge, their equipment and their time to help their neighbours during the crisis.

The riding of Compton-Stanstead came out a little better than other ridings in the Eastern Townships. I want to tell this House about the people from our area who got together and formed groups to load trailers with wood and drive to the stricken areas.

The municipality of Compton alone took in 60 people and fed and housed them for almost three weeks. And I want to take a moment to talk about the La Branche family from Saint-Isidore. They wanted to help. So what did they do? They gathered 25 people and went to cut and split wood. They had with five pick-up trucks and two logging trucks. In one day they went through 10 of those files that are used to sharpen chainsaw chains and, in fact, they went through 15 chainsaw chains. In one day.

They got back home at 9.30 at night, rested for a little while, and when I called looking for some volunteers, Marc-André La Branche and his wife got in their logging truck and drove 350 km. They arrived in Saint-Hyacinthe at 3.30 in the morning to unload five truckloads of wood that had just arrived from the riding of my friend and colleague from Tobique-Mactaquac, in New Brunswick.

This is a story about people wanting to help people, not asking for anything in return, but just helping their neighbours.

In fact, the help that came from Tobique-Mactaquac included donated wood and truckers who donated their time. The gas too was donated. So Canadians from areas that were not as badly hit came to help other Canadians.

I want to thank everybody who helped with these donations and donations of food, wood and generators and opened their homes to the victims.

I want to thank the Canadian forces personnel who gave people a sense of security—that they were going to make it through.

I also want to thank the municipalities in the region who sent their staff to help. The municipality of Coaticook had a hydro crew there every day all through the crisis.

There was major damage to the riding's sugar bushes. In fact, one of the most terrible things, one of the saddest things to see in the aftermath of the ice storm was the tops of the maple trees broken off. When spring comes and the thaw starts, those trees that are alive today will bleed to death.

I travelled all through my riding and, like everyone who saw the ice storm first hand, witnessed some savagely beautiful sights. It was beautiful and yet unbearable.

The damage is so extensive that many areas have not made an accurate evaluation. All the areas that have been hit and the victims, whether they are individuals, groups, organizations or businesses, are still figuring out what they are going to do.

Some of them do not have power yet and still need help. The government has taken measures to react quickly and respond to the biggest and most obvious needs. For some, it is very hard to find closure. The crisis is not over.

Existing programs are not enough to solve the problems. What we need is a series of measures supported by the province and by Canada to help all those who find themselves in a difficult situation.

Municipalities should, for example, have a plan in place for emergency situations and the province has a role to play ensuring that municipalities are ready in time of need. When I say a plan, I mean a realistic plan that takes people into account because a crisis like the one we went through in Quebec is not about governments, federal, provincial or municipal. It is not about money or insurance. For some the end of the day has not yet come and the lights are still not on, but at the end of the day, the crisis like the one we went through is about people. People count and we owe it to people of our ridings to do what we can to see that everyone is better prepared.

How can we do this? First, like I mentioned, there needs to be a physical plan. Second, and this takes foresight, this government must establish an emergency contingency fund. This fund must be established and allowed to grow.

If we think Canada will not see any more natural disasters we would be irresponsible. For that reason we must establish an emergency fund that can be accessed in times of crisis.

Third, there must be a clear appeal process that is outlined and in writing. There are thousands of victims of this ice storm who still do not know how they will come out of it and how it will affect them. They are waiting on governments to let them know how they will fare. That is unacceptable.

There should be some mechanism somewhere that tells people exactly what they can expect to see in the way of aid or compensation. It must be clear and it must be consistent.

Before I close I want to say another word about the Canadian forces who did such an incredible job during the ice storm and who invariably come to the aid of the government in times of need. I want to thank the men and women who instilled confidence in the communities just by being there.

Is it not a shame that this government does not give the Canadian forces the same confidence and support that the Canadian forces give their government? It is a shame that since 1994 Canadian forces have been cut by 23%.

This government does not properly equip our forces. This was demonstrated most clearly when we had to ask the United States to lend Canada cots and generators. How long can the Canadian forces be expected to perform their jobs so admirably when the government does not treat them with the respect they deserve?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to all those who helped out.

[Iraq, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the chief of defence staff said that Canada could send some help to the gulf region within nine hours of the order being given. I understand that our soldiers, sailors and airmen are not as confident.

Will the Minister of National Defence tell the House what is the state of readiness of our forces and what will Canada be capable of sending within nine hours when requested by our closest allies?