David Price

[Kosovo, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is off to war, without the slightest thought for the Canadian forces personnel in Bosnia.

One of the serious risks is that the war in Kosovo could spread to Bosnia, and thus the Canadian troops would find themselves in the midst of open warfare.

I wish to ask the minister what steps he has taken to reinforce Canadian troops in Bosnia, should the hostilities spread.

[National Defence, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we support our forces and the NATO action, but in the middle of the war the government is rotating home our CF-18s and crews from Italy and is replacing them with Cold Lake based fighters and crews.

Obviously there has been no planning or forethought to this military operation. Canadians are left wondering what military genius came up with this poorly timed plan.

Why are Canadian forces rotating the CF-18s now, or is this a back door chance to increase our CF-18 presence in the theatre?

[Kosovo, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and I want to see an end to the humanitarian tragedy taking place in Yugoslavia in Kosovo.

I also want to make it clear that we support our soldiers, sailors and air crew who have now been placed in harm's way and also those of our allies.

Canada and the NATO alliance made up of sovereign states have just gone to war with a sovereign state, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, over a civil war with the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo.

We have done this without a declaration of war and without the support of the United Nations. The minister quotes security council resolutions 1199 and 1203, but they do not specifically give NATO the right to use military force against Yugoslavia. He might want to brush up on his international law and his long lost text of realpolitik. We as a country and an alliance may have broken the codes of international law.

In Bosnia in 1995 NATO was directed by the United Nations to keep the peace and to intervene in a bloody civil war, but NATO is now engaged in an offensive military operation outside its own territory. We are quickly subscribing to the view of NATO as a global policeman. Let there be no mistake. We have just launched an air attack with our allies on a sovereign state.

The Canadian government has said by its actions that the United Nations and the soft power are not up to the task of ensuring global peace and security. We have just heard the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Soft Power, state that the use of force is the ultimate guarantee of peace and security. I hope this act of violence will not tarnish his Nobel peace prize, the one he wants so bad.

Let us leave the minister of war or foreign affairs for the moment and the fact that we may be violating international law. A minister of the crown just stood in the House and made a statement as the attack is going on. After the first weapons have impacted on our opponent's territory, the saddest thing for Canadians and the parliamentary process is that this country has slipped into war without briefing its people through parliament and through meaningful debate.

It is very sad indeed to see what little regard the government has for the principles of parliamentary democracy and the House. It obviously did not support the Somalia inquiry recommendations for a vigilant parliament and that is very upsetting to Canadians.

In conclusion, parliamentarians deserve honest and open answers from this government of self-proclaimed transparency and accountability, from its ministers, and we must hear from the chief of defence staff and his commanders immediately. Let us have a chance to ask the real questions that need to be asked on behalf of Canadians.

I also want to thank the Minister of National Defence for at least keeping the defence critics up to date on the military action that was taking place.

[Building Contracts, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has intervened in a situation involving one of his former properties and a person with a police record who did not reveal this when asked. He later met with, and provided support to, an individual who misused close to $1 million and is now under criminal investigation.

It is not a matter of determining whether the Prime Minister is a good MP, but rather whether there has been a misuse of taxpayers' money. I challenge the Prime Minister to give the auditor general the chance to clarify this matter.

[Building Contracts, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I learned today that the auditor general plans to act on the request by the member for Markham and investigate the dubious dealings involving Mr. Duhaime and Mr. Thibault.

Section 11 of the Auditor General Act allows cabinet to order an independent inquiry into the granting of government funds to an individual.

If the Prime Minister has no doubts about the honesty of the $2.3 million in subsidies and loans given Mr. Duhaime and Mr. Thibault, why does he not use his own authority and order—

[National Defence, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has joined its NATO allies in war with Yugoslavia and Canadian CF-18s and their crews are now about to engage Yugoslav military targets. The governments of the United Kingdom and the United States have been fully briefed and have debated issues prior to the attack.

In the press we have heard statements from the minister of “soft power”, who now sounds a lot more like the minister of war, talking about military action in Kosovo, but no debate, nothing from the Minister of National Defence, nothing from the chief of defence staff, nothing even on D-NET. Even when the Prime Minister decides to go skiing instead of attending state funerals, we see the chief of defence staff.

Now that Canada has gone to war, we still hear nothing from the military responsible. There have been no briefings to parliament and no debates. After our party pressed the government, the Minister of Foreign Affairs agreed to make a ministerial statement.

Will the real minister of defence please stand?

[National Defence, March 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the minister is not answering the question. This has been going on for 20 years.

I want to praise our military personnel for holding the fort under these circumstances: contaminated anthrax vaccine; insurance claims totaling about $100 million in the shipbuilding industry; cancellation of the Reserve's pension fund; and helicopters that are at the end of their useful life. Just yesterday, another one experienced mechanical problems. I could go on and on.

What will the minister do: deal with the helicopters or resign?

[National Defence, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there seems to have been an increase of approximately $337 million in the air force budget for this year, without any announcement of this by the minister.

Can the minister confirm whether any of this $337 million, which came from provincial transfer payments or military pensions funds, will be used to replace the Sea King helicopter fleet, especially since another one experienced problems this very morning at Shearwater?

[National Defence, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it came out during oral question period that the defence budget included some $600 million in additional unexpected funds.

In the minister's response, he claimed that this was for use in disaster relief operations. Yet the land forces have received $184 million in additional funding.

Was this additional amount meant to be used to meet the land force's operating budget deficit? Is that why National Defence was unable to pay its bills on time, because it had no more money?

[Semaine De La Francophonie, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. members are aware, today is the first day of the Semaine de la langue française et de la francophonie.

As a bilingual country, Canada has seized this opportunity to celebrate the success of biculturalism. This week also provides unilingual anglophones with the opportunity to enrich their contacts with French and to increase their knowledge of it.

I am therefore encouraging all hon. members to make as much use as possible of French when speaking in the House this week.

The first simultaneous interpretation facilities in the House of Commons were installed by the Progressive Conservative government of John Diefenbaker.

I invite all hon. members, particularly the unilingual and bilingual anglophones, to use, or to try out, their knowledge of French in order to show Canada's francophones that we support them and are proud to be representatives of a bilingual government.

Let us learn to appreciate our rich heritage.