Robert Bertrand

[National Defence, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister has said on a number of occasions in this House, the majority of the people who took the anthrax vaccine had no problems whatsoever. Only a very small percentage of people had any reactions to it at all.

[National Defence, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this government has always worked in good faith and in the best interests of the men and women of the Canadian armed forces to provide them with the best protection possible in what we must remember was a potentially dangerous operation.

We have been open and transparent on this issue and have been as forthcoming as possible with members of parliament and the media in explaining the facts, while respecting the rights of individuals who are before the courts to a fair trial.

[Petitions, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of submitting a petition signed by 25 residents of the Outaouais region.

The petitioners are asking Parliament to repeal the Firearms Act and to redirect the money spent on gun registration to more effective ways to reduce violent crime.

[Junior Achievement Globe Program, February 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to bring to your attention a special project that is presently taking place in the Pontiac.

The Pontiac CFDC in Campbell's Bay in partnership with Industries Davidson Incorporated and Junior Achievement are offering a unique opportunity to local students at the Pontiac high school in Shawville. Students will replicate an international business by forming student run, joint venture collaborations with another school located in Jakarta, Indonesia.

The Junior Achievement Globe program is a new dynamic high school program that teaches the value of international business and trade. Through this intensive business experience students will learn practical skills necessary to function in today's business market.

Student exchanges are a component of the program and serve to promote cultural understanding.

Permit me to extend our warmest welcome and congratulations to the three student visitors from Jakarta and their student sponsors from the Pontiac high school.

[Social Union Agreement, February 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, many people rightly feel that the social union agreement represents important progress in the evolution of Canadian federalism

For instance, in the new agreement, the federal government takes a large step in agreeing to no longer introduce new initiatives supported by transfers to the provinces, whether cost-shared or block-funded.

The federal government will limit its role to setting objectives and will have to obtain the agreement of a majority of provinces, which will then be allowed to tailor programs to their own requirements.

This is the kind of overture the government has made with a view to modernizing Canadian federalism. This is the kind of overture our government feels would strengthen the provinces' sense of being a part of Canada, while respecting their own priorities with respect to development and approach in a sector as vital as social services and health.

[National Defence, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister said yesterday in reference to the comments by the chief of the air defence staff and after my talk with him this morning, none of us would ever recommend anything to our Canadian troops if it was not safe.

The vaccine given to CF members in the gulf was tested for potency, safety, sterility and purity. The vaccine is safe.

[National Defence, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, our policy for pharmaceuticals is to obtain approval from Health Canada approval to import, store and distribute vaccines licensed in other countries but not in Canada before DND gives them to our personnel. This is exactly what we did last year with regard to the anthrax vaccine.

[Military Missions Beyond The Boundaries Of Canada, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to clarify something. If I understand correctly, we have only one speaker, which will take us to 6.15 p.m.

[Military Missions Beyond The Boundaries Of Canada, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this motion on the role of parliament with respect to defence and external affairs policy matters.

First of all, let me make it perfectly clear that we are against having to take a vote before any Canadian troops can be deployed abroad. This motion was debated for the first time in June, and again in October. Both times, we opposed this motion to make a vote mandatory before Canadian military personnel can be deployed abroad. Our position has not changed. We continue to believe not only that timely and effective action is required in times of international crisis but also that this position is consistent with what the people of Canada want.

We also continue to believe that it is important to consult parliament on the deployment of military personnel, and we have demonstrated on many occasions. Canada has made a name for itself internationally, and it is proud of it. Our involvement in the two world wars, the Korean War and various peacekeeping missions as well as the fact that we belong to many international organizations reflects that.

This tradition lives on today, the same way Canadians continue to depend on multiculturalism. The people of Canada continue to pay attention to what is happening internationally and to support a Canadian presence in hot spots around the world.

Let me draw attention to a public opinion poll conducted by Pollara in November of last year. In that poll Canadians responded overwhelmingly that Canada needed the Canadian forces. They supported UN peacekeeping, peace making missions requiring the use of force, NATO out of area operations and NORAD.

We recently reaffirmed Canada's international role by winning a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Three-quarters of the votes cast were in favour of Canada's bid, a clear endorsement of our international credentials, a recognition of our longstanding commitment to the United Nations and our commitment to a better world.

With our commitment to multilateralism and our position as one of Canada's wealthier countries and a G-7 member Canada has the means and a responsibility to maintain and deploy high quality armed forces. When crises arise that threaten peace and security we need to be able to respond quickly and effectively.

The government usually submits to the attention of the House those issues that involve major deployments abroad to maintain peace or to achieve other purposes, and this is precisely what we have done. The debates have focused on specific operations as well as on the principles and the thrust of Canada's peacekeeping policy.

For example, last year, parliament discussed several highly visible international events. In October, the House focused its attention on the situation in Kosovo. It discussed the possibility of Canada's participation in the settlement of that terrible conflict. All the political parties were in favour of an intervention if no diplomatic solution could be applied to this very serious humanitarian crisis.

In April, the House discussed the renewal of Canada's participation in the NATO led stabilization force in Bosnia.

All the parties agreed that Canadian troops should remain in Bosnia to continue to bring their valuable support in that poor country.

Also, in April the House of Commons defence and foreign affairs committee met to discuss Canada's participation in a peacekeeping force in the central African republic with both ministers and the media in attendance.

The joint meeting unanimously resolved that Canada should participate. These are just a few examples of public discussion, but there are many others. This House debated long into the night in February 1998 the participation of the Canadian forces in a possible military action in the Persian Gulf.

In February 1997 members debated Canada's role in international efforts to sustain a secure and stable environment in Haiti. We also had numerous debates in 1994 and in 1995 on our participation in the former Yugoslavia.

In fact, a special joint committee of the House and the Senate made a major contribution to the development of our current defence policy, which gives the Minister of National Defence and the Canadian forces the mandate to defend Canada and to protect its interests, while helping restore peace and security in the world. All this shows the great importance given by the government to parliamentary debates on these issues.

Since the end of the cold war, the number and the complexity of peacekeeping missions and other peace operations has constantly increased and these activities also last longer. In this era of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and indescribable human suffering, we must react quickly to emerging crises.

Thanks to its rapid reaction, Canada has been able to make a true contribution on the international scene. One of the lessons learned from experiences such as Rwanda, for example, is that the success of humanitarian relief operations depends on rapid deployment.

We have taken these lessons to heart by improving our ability to react very quickly. In 1996, for example, the Department of National Defence worked with foreign affairs and international trade and the Canadian International Development Agency to create a plan for responding quickly to humanitarian disasters.

The result of this co-operative effort was the Canadian forces disaster assistance response team, DART. DART is capable of responding to a crisis in Canada or almost anywhere in the world and we can begin deploying within 48 hours of a government decision to send assistance.

It was deployed to Honduras in November and in December 1998 as part of the international humanitarian response to hurricane Mitch. DART reflects the Canadian forces unique capabilities and resources to meet these challenges.

We also tried to improve the UN's ability to react in the event of a crisis. We feel this is important because, in our opinion, international peacekeeping operations should preferably be the result of a multilateral response from the UN.

Our government and the Canadian people are proud of the role played by Canada as a world leader in peacekeeping operations and a faithful partner in times of crisis. We will continue to consult parliament, either by holding debates in the House, or by having ministers or other spokespersons appear before standing committees.

[Jacques Parizeau, February 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the sovereignists want to give the separation option a new look. Big surprise, after the poor showing in the last election.

At least they got a well-known consultant, former premier Jacques Parizeau, the same Parizeau that lost the referendum.

But how else can they put it? There are only so many ways the sovereignists can say they want Quebec to separate from the rest of Canada.

I think what they want is a new bag of tricks. That is a favourite Parizeau strategy. But Quebeckers will not fall for Mr. Parizeau's all-too-familiar sleight-of-hand. They know him well. They know the option he favours, his objectives and his views on Quebec.

This is old hat. The separatists are coming up short in the imagination department these days.