David Price

[National Defence, December 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the minister of defence has his answer to any question with the word helicopter in it already memorized. I urge him to be earnest with Canadians. He says that he has restored the search and rescue helicopter fleet to full operational availability. What this means, according to him, is that it takes 70 hours of labour for every one hour of flight time. They are available less than 50% of the time. Proficiency and training flights are kept to an absolute minimum.

If the Labradors are not considered safe for full training and proficiency flying, how can they be considered safe for search and rescue?

[Criminal Code, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to using or operating a stolen motor vehicle in the commission of an offence.

Although my party and the Reform Party do not agree on the remedies in the justice system, we agree that there are many problems in our justice system. We agree that the Liberal government is not always there for Canadians to strengthen the Criminal Code and to toughen provisions when needed.

As mentioned by previous speakers, the bill would amend section 334 of the Criminal Code. The purpose of the amendment is to classify those found guilty of operating or using a motor vehicle which a person has stolen or knows to have been stolen while committing an indictable offence, during flight, or committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence.

The sentence for such an offence would be a term of imprisonment for one year. It would also require that the sentence be served consecutive to any other punishment if it arises out of the same set or series of events that contributed to the conviction of the first offence. All that is to say in plain language that there would be a greater emphasis placed on an offence committed when using a stolen vehicle.

Those who state there are already existing Criminal Code provisions which effectively address this problem are incorrect. The existing provisions may reference the problem it enforced, but the reality is that we need to put greater weight in the Criminal Code to deter those who use stolen vehicles to break the law.

I commend the hon. member's effort in this regard. I am supportive of the bill, as are all members of the Progressive Conservative caucus. It is a positive measure because it addresses two key areas in which there is a need for improvement to our Criminal Code. It would toughen criminal sanctions for individuals who have stolen vehicles to assist in the commission of their criminal acts.

This would be a welcome change because it punishes criminals additionally for the additional step they have taken, namely having stolen a vehicle to commit another offence. The use of a stolen vehicle is as much a crime as any other criminal act and it can be punished separately.

Another area of the intended amendment proposed ensures that the sentence imposed on the criminal, namely the driver, would be served consecutively. It is very much a truth in sentencing provision. For example, if someone is found guilty of an offence under this proposed provision the sentence would be cumulative. It would be served consecutively as opposed to concurrently. This would send a strong message to thousands of Canadians who lose their vehicles to theft or someone who would commit a robbery and forcefully take their vehicles. It would bring about greater accountability. It would certainly send that message to the criminal element.

Crimes involving personal property such as stolen vehicles are particularly offensive to the victims. People, for obvious reasons, attach a great deal of importance to their vehicle as a mode of transportation. When that vehicle is stolen and often damaged or never recovered, the person is generally inconvenienced. There is also that psychological feeling of invasion which people experience when their property is taken or damaged. It is similar to when a person's home is invaded.

We in the Progressive Conservative caucus feel that other amendments are needed to the Criminal Code to deal with crimes involving personal property. Last month my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough introduced Motion No. 515 which called for an amendment to the Criminal Code to include the offence of home invasions.

Progressive Conservatives also believe in a rigorous application of the principle of truth in sentencing. If someone commits a crime, he or she should be punished for that crime. That is why our caucus also supports the efforts of the member for Mississauga East in obtaining passage into law of Bill C-251. The purpose of the hon. member's bill is to amend the code to put greater emphasis on an existing offence. I believe this is positive. I would therefore hope that there is support for this bill which is votable.

We need to remember, however, that no matter how well intentioned legislation is it will go nowhere without the ability to implement and enforce it. I would therefore like to outline some concerns with respect to the government's persistent underfunding of law enforcement.

The justice minister and the solicitor general often state that public safety is a priority with the government. Instead of talking, the government could do a lot to demonstrate its commitment to public safety by supporting legislation such as the initiatives brought forward by the member for Wild Rose, the member for Mississauga East and the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

Government should pay greater attention to what our police community is saying. Quite bluntly, police officers are getting the shaft from the Liberal government. According to the information revealed by the government's own organized crime summit in April, the national police service needs an additional $200 million over the next four years or it will functionally expire. That will have an impact on every part of the country.

We have already seen a situation evolve where large detachments of the RCMP are underfunded. Even worse, the force's overall budget for the fiscal year is $10 million short to date and the RCMP cadet program has been frozen for the rest of the year.

Sadly the government has for many months displayed a callous and reckless attitude in its approach toward fighting crime. This is a time when the Liberal government seems oblivious to the negative consequences of the government's disbanding of the ports police, as we saw in Halifax and Vancouver. We are also seeing an increasing amount of drug smuggling and illegal contraband material coming into Canada through out ports. Yet this decision was made and followed through against the wishes of many in the community who knew what the ramifications could be.

The solicitor general and the Liberal government decided to cut $74.1 million from the RCMP's organized crime budget for this fiscal year, according to the government's own estimate documents. That is not leadership in providing resources to our law enforcement community. That is a 13% cut in one fiscal year of overall dollars dedicated by the RCMP to fight organized crime.

The RCMP is not the only police force that feels the effects. Municipal and provincial police forces inevitably are forced to pick up the slack. More download. Many of these forces are already burdened by the abandonment of ports police and are struggling to fill the void left by the negative decisions of the government. The Liberal government should stop downloading its financial responsibilities to support young offenders programs and services on the backs of the provinces.

When the Young Offenders Act came into effect in 1984 the federal government guaranteed that it would assume 50% of the costs. Today the federal government only picks up 30% of that tax with the provinces and territories assuming the remaining 70%. Is it any wonder the Minister of Justice cannot get provinces onside to replace the Young Offenders Act?

While I support Bill C-219 I hope government members find the will to vote in favour of the bill. I reiterate the call for the government to stop its destructive policies with respect to our frontline police officers. Talk is cheap. The law enforcement community needs action.

[Quebec Election, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last night, I was proud to be in Sherbrooke to celebrate Jean Charest's victory. I congratulate Mr. Charest on that victory and on winning a higher percentage of the popular vote than the Parti Quebecois.

Through this victory, Jean Charest sends a clear message to Quebeckers and to Canadians. Quebeckers do not want a government that talks about referendums and separation. They want a government that talks about jobs and health, and that looks for ways to make the federation work.

This is what Mr. Charest did, despite the Prime Minister's efforts to derail him. We can look forward to a very interesting fight in the National Assembly over the next four years. With Mr. Charest heading up a strong opposition, all Quebeckers stand to gain.

[Pork Producers, November 27th, 1998]

The present government has invested millions in the Lennoxville Research Station in my riding for research on pig slurry.

I acknowledge that such studies are essential, but they are useless if pork producers continue to go bankrupt. There will simply be none of them left to make use of this technology.

How many pork producers need to go bankrupt before this government realizes that its policy on pig slurry is just pig manure?

[Pork Producers, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the problems relating to pig slurry merit the government's attention.

The present government has, in fact, invested millions into the Lennoxville Research Station in my riding for research on pig slurry, particularly on ways to suppress the odour and waste generated. Yet the government is unwilling to do anything in spite of these studies. Not a day goes by without the government talking about this crisis, and not a day goes by without another farm bankruptcy.

How many pork producers need to go bankrupt before it decides to intervene?

[Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this treaty has been an arms control and disarmament objective of successive Canadian governments since the 1960s. The Right Hon. Joe Clark made this issue a high priority when he was foreign minister.

The comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty was open for signature at a special session of the United Nations general assembly in New York on September 24, 1996 and has now been signed by over 150 countries.

Canada played an important role in the treaty's negotiation, in particular in relation to the verification regime. Approximately 15 Canadian monitoring stations will be part of the international monitoring system as well as one radionuclide laboratory.

Canada has also worked with other countries such as Australia to find a way to open the treaty for signature and ratification. Twenty-one countries have now ratified the treaty, including two nuclear weapons states, the United Kingdom and France, and eight of the thirty-nine non-nuclear states designated under the treaty as having nuclear energy or research programs.

They therefore, along with the nuclear weapons states, must also ratify the treaty before it can come into force. Canada, one of the world leaders in nuclear technology for solely peaceful purposes, is a designated state. It is therefore most appropriate and important that Canada be one of the first group countries to ratify the treaty.

I do not underestimate the importance and complexity of this seemingly straightforward legislation. Bill C-52 criminalizes the carrying out of or aiding and abetting in the carrying out of nuclear explosions. It establishes a national authority to serve as a focal point for a liaison between Canada and the CTBTO in Vienna, with other states party to the treaty, and obligates Canadian industry to report large scale chemical explosions which might be confused with nuclear tests. Once passed, this legislation will allow Canada to ratify the treaty.

I want to take a minute to talk about Canada's record. This government made a very weak statement about France's testing in the Pacific. It was clearly a race to a large nuclear capacity for France before ratification. It is also disgraceful that Canada has not pursued more vigorously its assistance to Russia and the former Soviet Union states in demobilizing their nuclear capability.

The Conservative government started with a small fund in the early 1990s to help scholars so that they might remain within Russia and the Soviet Union and not sell their knowledge and dangerous expertise to other countries.

Equally disturbing is this government's lack of response to the troubled Arctic waters. Time and time again, both in Russia and elsewhere, concerns have been raised in relation to the nuclear waste that is embedded on the floor of the Arctic Ocean and, in the words of many, contaminating our waters around the world. This government has paid only lip service to this problem. If this government wishes to be consistent with this new treaty it must again raise these issues as we did in the early 1990s.

In the wake of the 1974 nuclear explosion test by India, using Canadian technology transferred in good faith solely for peaceful purposes, we learned a hard lesson. Under the leadership of my party Canada went on to become one of the first nuclear exporters to require International Atomic Energy Agency full scope safeguards on all our exports of nuclear material to non-nuclear weapons states. We also put in place arrangements to ensure that any transfers for peaceful purposes to a nuclear weapons state would not be diverted for military purposes. These are longstanding Canadian policies which were groundbreaking in their time.

Regrettably, however, against that backdrop of exceedingly high standards and practices must be set the seemingly casual way this government went about signing a nuclear co-operation agreement with China, a nuclear weapons state which still does not require full scope safeguards for its nuclear exports and whose record of proliferation of significant transfers has been dangerous. I want to know how this government can square the ease with which we entered into nuclear co-operation with a communist country with brutal non-proliferation credentials with a very high priority which this government purports to give to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

If Canada is to continue to play a leadership role in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and promoting their successive reduction, we must attend to all aspects of our nuclear policy with equal vigour and credibility. But the government never learns. Why? For money. From the events of last year's APEC summit we know the government cares more about money than human rights. We also know the government cares more about money than it does about world security. We should not so easily forget the lessons of India in the 1970s and the question being raised about our nuclear installations and uses in Canada.

The standing committee on foreign affairs and international trade in the other place has just finished a review of Canada's non-proliferation arms control and disarmament policy. The minister asked that we have full House support for the committee report. My party will be forthright. Nuclear weapons are not land mines. My party supported the minister's efforts in the land mine treaty and congratulate him on his success. We are in favour of stopping proliferation. We are in favour of arms control. The world has been, is currently and will be a dangerous place. Ridding our security system 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.

This minister talks about 50 years ago. Maybe 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 this 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 unilateral 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 it will is very dangerous. The reality is the Chinese are developing more nuclear weapons, not fewer. 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, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence said that he is asking his cabinet colleagues for more money to give our soldiers the quality of life they deserve.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Does the minister understand that the men and women who serve this country in uniform need his help? Is the Minister of Finance listening to his colleague and will the Canadian forces receive the quality of life they deserve?

[National Defence, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a month has gone by since the standing committee on national defence tabled its report on quality of life.

After visiting military bases across the country and the Canadian troops in Bosnia, the committee made 86 vitally important recommendations.

Today, unconfirmed reports are saying that the Minister of National Defence is asking cabinet for $700 million in order to implement the recommendations.

Is cabinet aware that the Canadian forces are facing a crisis? Is cabinet aware that some members of the forces do not earn enough to feed their family or even to heat their homes in winter? Is cabinet aware that the families of certain pilots are terrified every time they head out on a mission in helicopters that are over 30 years old?

Are the members of cabinet listening to their own minister? Are they not concerned about the life and future of the 60,000 members of the Canadian armed forces?

[Reform's Anti-Profiteering Act, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak today to the bill put forward by the member for Surrey Central. I am sure the intent of the bill is fair. Times of crisis are not times for profiteering. During the ice storm of 1998 there were a great deal of stories that circulated that would make a lot of people cringe.

During the ice storm people were suffering. As I am sure members will recall, there were a great many people affected such as those in my riding of Compton—Stanstead. They had no electricity. They had no light. They had no heat. For many people, especially elderly people and families with young children, this situation was an emergency. These people needed help. In some cases people required food and water. In all cases people required heat. Strangely enough in this country we all cherish there were people who, rather than volunteering a helping hand to those in need, took advantage of the situation to turn a profit. Some of these stories are somewhat disgusting.

I will mention just a few so that members are aware of the situation I am speaking of. This was a time when people were suffering and yet incredibly these are the stories I have heard.

One person, knowing the food in people's freezers had gone bad because they had no electricity, sold hamburgers for $20 each. Another person brought big candles to people's houses offering light and heat, a neat little package for only $50. Other people sold blankets, flashlights and generators all for profit.

These acts during the ice storm are a demonstration of the worst of human nature, taking advantage of the weak and the disadvantaged. It is not something that happened only during the ice storm. During the floods in Manitoba and the Saguenay similar stories have been heard.

What do we do about this? The government, as usual, would like people to think that everything is okay, that there is no problem and that everybody is happy. By the way, it does have an extra $10 billion that it took from Canadians which it does not need, and if there is a problem during an emergency the government would rather not hear about it. The military did an incredible job during those emergencies. Maybe some of this money could be used to help the military have a better, everyday quality of life. Would we not call this a form of profiteering by our government? Quite simply, the government does not care.

The Reform approach is not ideal either. The bill was brought forward by the same member who wants stiffer laws to punish immigrant law breakers as opposed to regular law breakers. He has recently said he wants to scrap government multicultural programs. He wants Canada to consider sanctions against our friends in Israel. Coming from this member, looking at any bill that might become law one must be very careful.

As I said earlier profiteering during emergencies is indeed a disgusting practice, but there are ways to avoid this activity and to self-police such activity that need not be legislated from this place.

During an emergency the first thing that happens is people who are affected form a special bond, a special community. I was mayor of a community that had a plan like most communities should have. Three years ago we had a train wreck in the middle of the community of propane cars. It was very dangerous and volatile. We had to evacuate but it was all planned. We had volunteers ready and places for the people to go. It was people working together as volunteers. This is more in the direction we should be looking.

For the most part this community is created out of necessity and is there to help those in need. For the most part this community provides hamburgers, candles, blankets and generators to those in need.

It is important to acknowledge that the stories of people doing good in an emergency always far outweigh the stories of people taking advantage. Maybe it would be a good idea for communities to be more aware of the profiteering that has gone on in past emergencies so that when an emergency transpires the community is ready not only to provide help to those who need it but to put a stop to those people who want to profit.

Maybe one person or a group of people from the community will undertake to take note of profiteers. Maybe it can be made public by creating a list of those people. This might serve as a deterrent.

During the ice storm in Quebec this happened in a way. In terms of electrical services, for instance, where electrical entrances were broken down by the ice, certain contractors took advantage. Immediately as it was found out the Corporation of Master Electricians put out a notice in the papers naming those contractors. People remember after they have been taken advantage of. These are good deterrents.

Unlike the government that believes it has an answer but does not want to share it, and unlike the Reform Party that has all the answers so long as we agree, I do not have all the answers. I do know, however, that a problem like the one raised by the member for Surrey Central is best served if it is brought to the attention of local communities and not legislated from Ottawa.

On my part I will inform my community of Compton—Stanstead on the issues discussed today and ask my colleagues in the House to do the same. By being aware, our communities can help themselves. After all, this is Canada and I remain optimistic.

Although I recounted tales of profiteering earlier, there are always many happy stories which emerge from crises like these. There are stories of people helping people, of people giving their hamburgers, candles, blankets and generators and all they ask in return is that their community remain strong and healthy. That is the Canadian community I know and the Canadian community we will always have.

[Remembrance Day, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Canada's veterans.

Although I pay tribute every year to the men and women who fought for Canada, this is the first time I have had an opportunity to do so in the House of Commons. I consider it a privilege.

Veterans served their country so that the inhabitants of Compton—Standstead and of all regions of Canada may vote for the candidate of their choice.

As this violent and bloody century draws to a close, young Canadians must know that the values, ideals and institutions we hold dear today required sacrifices.

Too often during this century, tyrants and dictators tried to expand their empires by force. Many people saw their villages burned, their families killed and their freedom taken away.

Too many times this century tyrants and dictators raised their ugly heads and expanded their realm through force. For individuals this meant seeing their villages burned, their families murdered and their freedoms extinguished.

Against the expanding tyranny of Germany and Austria in the first world war, Nazi Germany, Japan and Italy in the second world war, and communist North Korea, China and the Soviet Union in the Korean War, Canada held firm. Young, vibrant Canadians with their futures ahead of them understood the importance of the call and put their lives on hold and at risk. Soldiers, sailors and airmen travelled to the farthest reaches of the globe to protect their families at home, safe in Canada. Too many of them never came back.

Today, thanks to their sacrifice, we continue to be safe here at home in Canada. While young people must learn the history of this century, our leaders must remember its lessons.

Tyrants must never be appeased. Dictators must never be welcome. True justice and freedom must always be the guiding principles for the leaders of Canada, leaders who inherited the trust of those who never made it back.

As I stand here in this House of Commons, elected freely by the citizens of Compton—Stanstead, I remember those who served Canada and on behalf of all Canadians and all people who love freedom, merci, thank you.