David Price

[Trans-Canada Highway, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of New Brunswick reneged on a contract with the Government of Canada and Quebec now finds itself paying the price, and a high one at that.

The Trans-Canada Highway through New Brunswick is the main link between the Magdalen Islands and the rest of Quebec. New Brunswick has announced that a toll booth would be set up on the section of the highway running between Moncton and Petitcodiac.

This section of the highway should be funded equally by the federal and the provincial governments. The provincial government has refused. Instead of paying its share, it will set up toll booths. If we end up with toll booths, it will be because the Government of Canada did not hold New Brunswick to the agreement.

On behalf of the people of Quebec, I call on the Minister of Transport to require New Brunswick to respect its obligations.

[Helicopter Purchase, October 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I guess for this government money is more important than lives.

The government continues to risk lives. In 1996 it sold perfectly good helicopters that could have been used for search and rescue. We cannot get them back.

Today the chief of air staff said “Nothing says we have not missed an undetected flaw in the remaining aircraft”. He also confirmed today that there are offers on the table from Boeing and from the United States to loan Canada helicopters.

Will the Prime Minister stop the madness and get some help?

[Helicopter Purchase, October 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in 1993, the Prime Minister took a calculated risk in canceling the helicopter contract. In 1996, he took another calculated risk in selling seven Chinook helicopters for $16 million.

Will the Prime Minister stop placing human lives in danger and, to this end, retire the fleet of Labradors and replace them with other helicopters?

[Chief Justice Brian Dickson, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Chief Justice Brian Dickson who passed away on Saturday.

As a young man, Dickson served bravely in the Royal Canadian Artillery in Europe during World War II where he was seriously wounded. When he was later named to the Supreme Court of Canada he said:

In understanding the responsibilities to which I have been called, I dedicate myself to maintain the great tradition of this court, to search for truth and to use such judicial power as is mine to resolve fairly the basic questions about justice and liberty, the rights of the individual and the authority of the state.

He lived up to and surpassed these ideals. I had the privilege of meeting Chief Justice Dickson this spring at defence committee meetings where he vigorously defended the report on the military that bears his name.

As Canada says goodbye to one of her most distinguished sons, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada extends its condolences to his wife Barbara and their four children. We are grateful for the life Chief Justice Dickson led—

[Department Of National Defence, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Interlinx, a company in my riding, received a cheque from the Department of National Defence dated September 11, 1998 for the sum of $1,182.56. Interlinx does not have an invoice for this fee and has in fact done no work for the Department of National Defence.

As the defence committee studied quality of life issues last year it became apparent that the Department of National Defence cannot afford this type of wasteful management. Yet the Prime Minister found $14.5 million to build a new armoury in his riding.

It is important that the Canadian public and members of the Canadian Forces at all levels are confident that resources are managed properly and not being wasted.

How many more cheques have been sent out? What assurance is there that this type of wasteful management will not happen again? To answer these questions to Canadians' satisfaction, I have written to the auditor general to request an internal audit of the Department of National Defence.

I will return the wasted money to the minister this afternoon after question period.

[Salaries For Stay At Home Mothers And Fathers, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik has long worked on this. He presented a similar motion in 1993, when he was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. The only difference is that he referred only to women then. In five years, not only did he become a Liberal, but he now includes men too. I congratulate him on that.

The motion is a good idea, but it should be looked at more seriously. I think that everyone agrees the work done by parents who stay at home is important and should be recognized in some way or other. However, a guaranteed hourly salary of $5.40 is not very realistic these days. The member must realize that his own government will never agree to his motion. But it is nice to dream.

If the member were serious, he would perhaps be looking at more realistic solutions. My colleague from Shefford introduced in this House a motion to index the child tax benefit, which was agreed to on division. Perhaps the member should try to convince his own government to introduce legislation consistent with his motion.

The government could perhaps think about investing more money in child care or about giving tax credits. More flexible work schedules could be established. The hon. member could also pressure his own caucus to get the government to consider these proposals.

The cost of such a project could reach $9 billion. I do not think the government is prepared to spend that kind of money. I thank the hon. member for proposing this motion, but, unfortunately, I do not think it is very realistic.

[Community Newspaper Week, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this week is Community Newspaper Week. Whether in one part of an urban setting or the voice of a rural township, community newspapers give a voice to individuals and to the associations working to build Canada.

These local papers enrich our communities by highlighting achievements of local residents and provide a forum for discussion leading to action.

I am very aware that the local newspapers in my riding play an essential role in keeping the community informed and united. I am thinking, among others, of the Stanstead Journal , the Progrès de Coaticook , the Reflet du Lac , and the Haut St-François .

Let us take a moment to acknowledge the men and women who report, edit, lay out the pages, solicit advertising and manage the distribution of news that is closest to home.

Each newspaper is unique, as is the community that it represents. Together, they make a major contribution to the vitality of the Canadian community.

[Kosovo, October 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the minister says we will be ready but if there are NATO air strikes will we be actively participating? If so, are we preparing our troops on the ground in other parts of Bosnia for the retaliation that will probably happen?

It would have been nice before this debate had we had an all-party briefing to prepare us a little more. That is what happened the last time and it would have appreciated if we could have had the same type of thing this time. I hope we can expect that there will be briefings along the way as this file progresses.

[Kosovo, October 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, this debate concerns a very serious matter, one of life and death. It merits the attention of all members and all Canadians. I notice that there are no ministers in the House, no one to listen to my party's views. That is totally unacceptable.

The government has asked the House to take note of the situation. During the take note debate in February concerning sending Canadian troops to Iraq to what might very well have been a dangerous situation I said that it was the weakest parliamentary engagement a government could undertake.

The government refuses to place a substantive question before the House when it concerns defence matters. The government refuses to let members vote to support or condemn its policy when it concerns defence matters. It is clear that the government is ashamed of its policy when it comes to defence matters, and should it be any wonder.

The Prime Minister likes to tell Canadians that he has consulted the House of Commons. But Canadians know that the Prime Minister will not let the House vote on this issue, just as he has not let the House vote on every other military issue. He refuses to put his policy to a vote, a fundamental characteristic of democracy. In doing so, the Prime Minister weakens his case when he tells other nations how they should behave.

The issue before us is the Yugoslavian province of Kosovo. Slobodan Milosevic is the Serbian leader of Yugoslavia and the evidence suggests that he has ordered the slaughter of thousands of ethnic Albanians. This is not new evidence. The west has known publicly about these atrocities at least since February. Now 200 villages in Kosovo have been destroyed and more than 250,000 people have become refugees. Thousands have been killed.

The west has failed to act, and Canada under this government has done nothing to urge the United Nations or NATO to take action sooner. Only now when the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Britain decide it is time to take action will the government move. That is not leadership. But then Canadians have not come to expect leadership from this government. From this government they have come to expect excuses.

In Bosnia the European Union looked foolish. In Bosnia the United Nations failed. Only when NATO took action, belated action admittedly, did Milosevic respond. That action was late, but it was tough.

In 1995 air strikes led to the Dayton accords, a fragile settlement that is being monitored by 1,300 Canadian troops to this day.

Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, came out with a statement that condones military action. While the west has been late, it is important this action be taken now.

As some of us have learned, this century's greatest lesson is that if an aggressor is appeased, their appetite only grows. Although leadership on this issue has been lacking, NATO must act now.

But it is not a straightforward issue. Kosovo is a province inside Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia is ruled by Milosevic. Should we be in favour of Kosovo independence at this juncture? This is a classic case of how not to deal with ethnic minorities, but it is certainly a difficult dilemma between self-determination and not breaking up countries.

If only it could be as simple as pointing to Canada as a beacon of how two distinct peoples can live together with occasional debate and heartache, but mostly a great love and respect for each other. If only Milosevic listened to reason the way the people of Quebec and the people of Alberta listen to reason, the Balkans would be a lot safer place.

But Mr. Milosevic is not a reasonable man. By all accounts he is a murderous tyrant who must be dealt with and must be dealt with harshly. NATO has proven that it is the only credible force that can act at this time.

This government talks about taking measures. If these measures do not include helping our NATO allies who will be using force, then my party will have to disagree with the government.

Canada has six CF-18s based at Aviano Air Force Base in Italy. They must be used. There is no reason that I am aware of that Canada could not fly air cover for this mission. If there are reasons why they cannot be used, the minister has to tell the House right now. But there are risks and the government must do all that it can to prepare Canadians for these risks.

First, the CF-18s will be flying over hostile territory. Milosevic has no small force. He has four brigades and will attempt to shoot down any NATO planes. This is a risk, but a risk that Canada must take.

Second, Milosevic has threatened retaliation against NATO troops anywhere, and that includes Bosnia. As I mentioned earlier, Canada has 1,300 troops in Bosnia. I visited them last spring and they are certainly up to the task but there will be danger. They will be threatened and that is a danger. The government must tell the Canadian public about this danger. The Canadian public must know that Canadians will be part of this operation.

Third, after this bombing, it may be necessary to put troops on the ground. U.S. Secretary of Defence Cohen said yesterday in Washington that might indeed be necessary. He said that if it is done, it will only be European troops. Canada needs to know if that has been agreed to and exactly what role Canada will be playing after the initial bombings.

There are other factors. There is the Russian factor. As the House knows, the Russians are related ethnically and religiously to the Serbs. They have told us that they are against NATO bombing. That is unfortunate, but unfortunately NATO will have to go ahead without their approval. Hopefully they will get on side once the urgency of the matter is made clear to them.

There is another factor that I must make reference to and that is the Clinton factor. The president is weakened because he is under investigation in a legitimate legal inquiry under the U.S. constitution. At this time, in my party's opinion, it is important for our NATO allies to show solidarity more than ever.

While U.S. leadership is essential, if Canada is assertive and plays its role as it should, the world will know that NATO continues to be history's finest example of collective security. And while the situation in Kosovo is certainly a humanitarian crisis, it is also a military situation.

Bosnia showed that NATO was the only credible force Milosevic will respect.

At this time the foreign minister, who has no understanding of the world, is talking about Canada leading the way in calling for total nuclear disarmament, a policy that would have Canada expelled from NATO. Now is the time for this government, this minister of defence to be serious about Canada and the world and live up to its good name.

Canada must play a role of responsibility. It must understand that NATO is the one structure that can make a difference and it must take action with our allies.

My party will stand behind this government if this government stands behind its soldiers.

[Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Davenport, but while on my feet I would like to reply to the question of the member for Burnaby—Douglas on de-alerting. I probably represented my party's views rather authoritatively since we are still considering this component.

My question for the member for Davenport is if we could list in detail what will face us within the next 50 years, what would his reaction be to total disarmament rather than just arms control, which is what we are really doing now?