David Pratt

[Veterans, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, today we are recognizing an exceptional group of veterans to whom we owe a great deal of gratitude.

These veterans volunteered to participate in chemical agent testing at Suffield and Ottawa during and after the second world war.

Through their selfless service, service that has until now gone unrecognized, these veterans spared their comrades in arms the horrors of chemical warfare. More than that, they have provided the foundation for Canada's response to the very threat of chemical warfare, a threat that continues to this day.

From all accounts, these experiments were secret for a long time and, as a result, some veterans felt that they could not share their experiences with their family and friends. Others have brought to light that they felt that they could not access veterans' benefits as it meant disclosing the trials.

We are particularly thankful to Mr. Harvey Friesen and Mr. William Tanner for bringing these concerns to the attention of the government and we find the difficulties that these veterans encountered over the last several years very regrettable.

That is why we have established a program to provide payments to these individuals, payments that will total $24,000 for each eligible veteran or the beneficiaries of their wills.

We hope that today's announcement of this payment and recognition program will allow these veterans who have served Canada with pride and distinction to move forward with the respect and admiration they so richly deserve.

I would also like to take this brief opportunity as well to thank the current Minister of Veterans Affairs, the previous Minister of Veterans Affairs and the DND ombudsman, Mr. André Marin, for their contribution to this recognition program.

[National Defence, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the world does not stop. We do not have the opportunity to get off the world in terms of the security issues while we are studying our defence policy. This government is taking action with respect to what we feel is in the best interests of Canadians, action consistent with Canadian interests and values.

Protecting Canadians from a possible ballistic missile attack is one of the things that is under consideration.

[National Defence, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my answer to the earlier question, which was this. The government has not made a decision on whether to participate in the U.S. national missile defence program. Nor has there been any request by the United States to use our territory.

In any event, as I said before, there are two levels of speculation involved here. I want to quote from the article that appeared yesterday, in the The Gazette .

We're not saying no. We're not saying yes. We want to understand precisely how the security architecture of this system is going to function.

Beyond that, I would simply say that what we are looking at is a limited system of land and sea based interceptors.

[National Defence, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to accuse anyone of lying, but what I will say is that the leader of the NDP has failed in his obligation to tell Canadians the truth about missile defence.

We have had a number of instances where the NDP has exaggerated facts about the missile defence system. The $1 trillion price tag is an example, as is the fact that the NDP believes these missiles are going to be nuclear tipped, which is absolutely absurd.

The U.S. policy on missile defence has absolutely nothing to do with the weaponization of space. The NDP seems to ignore that.

[National Defence, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, inherent in that question are really two levels of speculation.

The first level presumes that we will be part of the U.S. missile defence system. That in effect is not the case. The government has not made a decision on that. The second level of speculation involves whether or not the U.S. may need our territory if we decide to participate. We do not know that at this point.

Again the NDP has run off on a tangent here in terms of its level of speculation.

[Contraventions Act, February 23rd, 2004]

moved:

That Bill C-10, in Clause 3.1, be amended by replacing lines 12 to 23 on page 2 with the following:

“trieval system maintained by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or any other law enforcement information system maintained by an organization that has a law enforcement role, and who knowingly discloses to a foreign government, an international organization or a person who acts in the name or on behalf of such a government or organization information contained in that system respecting an offence referred to in subsection 4(5), (5.1), (5.2) or (5.4) or paragraph 7(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, is guilty of an”

That Bill C-10, in Clause 9.1, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 8 on page 7 with the following:

“9.1 (1) Within three years after this section comes into force, the Minister shall appoint one or more persons to carry out a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act.

(2) The review shall be completed and a report of the review submitted to the Minister within one year after the appointment referred to in subsection (1).

(3) The Minister shall have a copy of the report laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 30 days on which that House is sitting after the Minister receives the report.”

[National Defence, February 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, a good portion of this boils down to basic arithmetic. The missile defence agency in the U.S. is spending $9 billion per year on missile defence. At the rate of spending that would be required in order to reach $1 trillion, it would take over 100 years to achieve that.

This is not something that is of concern to us certainly in terms of the $1 trillion figure because I think it is patently obvious that the figure has no substance. What is more important is the fact that Canada will continue to work through international fora to limit the proliferation of weapons.

[Veterans Affairs, February 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the government is recognizing these brave Canadian veterans because now is the right time to do it.

On behalf of the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada, I want to express our deepest regrets to these veterans and their families who have suffered far too long in silence. All Canadians owe them a debt of gratitude.

We hope that yesterday's announcement of a payment and recognition program will allow these veterans who have served Canada with pride and distinction to move forward with the respect and admiration they so richly deserve.

[National Defence, February 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason why the NDP has been criticized on this issue is because they have laid before the Canadian public a number of specious arguments. The NDP has talked about $1 trillion being spent on ballistic missile defence. That is absolutely absurd. They talked about nuclear tipped warheads being used for ballistic missile defence. That is absolutely absurd. It is not part of the existing program.

The NDP needs a credibility check on this issue.

[National Defence, February 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear once again. We have had two debates in the House this week. I have made these points on a number of occasions, but I will make them again.

The official policy of the Government of Canada is one of non-weaponization of space. The Prime Minister has said that and the Minister of Foreign Affairs has said that.

In addition to that, the official policy of the United States government is one of non-weaponization of space. They do have the ability to research various programs in the United States, but before they deploy anything there has to be a change of policy and that has not taken place.