Leon Benoit

[National Defence, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian military needs heavy transport planes to quickly and reliably move troops and their equipment to trouble spots, both in Canada and abroad. The Royal United Services Institute says our military's lack of strategic airlift undermines Canada's sovereignty and security. That is the view shared by almost every military organization in the country.

Why will the defence minister not just get our military the heavy transport planes it needs to protect and to deliver to the Canadian people when they need help?

[Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, April 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this issue, although of course I wish there was no need for it. It is very unfortunate indeed. What we are facing with SARS is a very serious national issue.

I would like to start tonight by thanking all the people involved in the health care system, the health care workers, doctors, nurses, other frontline health care workers, as well as public health officials, for their response to this issue. They have done an awful lot to help contain this very serious problem and deserve recognition for that. I would like to sincerely thank these people for the truly wonderful work they have done during this very difficult time. They have done a tremendous job and they should be recognized for that.

I and my party colleagues certainly would like to extend our sympathies to the families who have lost family members or friends to this disease. We know there have been many already. Certainly not only the thoughts of family members are with these people but the thoughts and prayers of people across the country are with those individuals who have lost family members and close friends to this disease.

I have heard some government members say that we should not be making a partisan issue out of the whole situation surrounding SARS, and I fully agree with that. We all have to work together to do what we can to deal with this very difficult situation. However, as a member of the official opposition, I also feel it is my responsibility and the responsibility of my colleagues to talk about some things that have happened on this issue which should not have happened and to talk about some things that have not happened which should have happened.

It is important to talk about the lack of leadership on this issue. It is not only on this issue where there has been a lack of leadership. The lack of leadership on the military and on health care have also contributed to the situation we are facing today.

I hear members of the government party over there heckling me. They can heckle if they like but it is important that they listen to the opposition on this issue, maybe learn a little and certainly take some responsibility for what they have not done regarding leadership instead of heckling on the issue.

Because the government has not taken the leadership with the military, when the military was asked to provide doctors and other medical personnel to help deal with the situation, how could it respond? I was asked, as the defence critic for the official opposition, whether the military should be providing doctors, nurses and other frontline health care people. I said that ideally it should but the reality was that the military had been so mismanaged by the government that it simply did not have the doctors, nurses and other frontline people to contribute. Realistically it does not have enough medical personnel to meet its own needs. The one area of mismanagement has led to a problem in the second area of mismanagement.

Second, the government has mismanaged health care generally across the country for the 10 years I have been here. We have seen it go downhill and deteriorate more and more. Because of that and the poor leadership on that issue, we see a shortage of health care people. They are stretched so thin that it is very difficult to find enough people to deal with the very serious situation we are facing now.

Government mismanagement is not only directly on the issue of SARS. It is in other areas as well. That mismanagement has led to a problem in dealing most effectively with this issue.

I want to talk directly to the issue, to what, unfortunately, has not happened and to the lack of leadership on the part of the government. Government members can tell us not to get partisan but I do not believe this is partisan. I believe this is just the Official Opposition members, including myself, carrying out our responsibility as members of the Official Opposition.

Health Canada issued its first public advisory on SARS on March 16. Since last week the federal government has been virtually invisible on this important national and international issue. The Prime Minister was off golfing somewhere. The health minister has not been available. In the U.S., on the other hand, early on in the outbreak we saw President Bush, who so many government members like to criticize, announce quarantine measures would be put in place if needed. He took a very firm, very public and very definite stand on the issue. That certainly helped Americans deal with the issue.

In Canada, the government's response has been timid at best. I think I am being very generous in saying that it has been timid. The government has said there is no need to invoke the Quarantine Act. The United States certainly took a different position and I think it was the right position.

I have talked about the fact that the Prime Minister certainly has not been here. The health minister cancelled a press conference last week because journalists wanted to discuss SARS. Surely when something like this SARS outbreak goes on in our country the government should expect that on a daily basis the health minister and the Prime Minister would answer to the public and answer the public's important questions on this issue. That is leadership.

Liberals take the time to speak to the public when they want to promote some cause they feel is important. Why, on this issue, when the public is so desperately looking for leadership, have they not been providing that leadership? That is the question with which members of the government simply have to deal.

The heritage minister declared a national emergency and said that the government was pledging emergency assistance even though the Prime Minister and the health minister were not available. When they have said things they have said there was no national emergency and that there was no need for any emergency assistance, although they finally offered $10 million, but the heritage minister was saying something entirely different. We have to wonder who is in charge of this. It certainly shows a problem with leadership.

On the other hand, the Ontario health minister has gone to Geneva to talk with the World Health Organization on this issue. What about the federal health minister? Not yet as far as I know. The World Health Organization is an international organization. It has made its statement on this issue but who speaks for Canada? Is it the Ontario health minister? Why would there not be a Canadian government minister or prime minister speaking to the World Health Organization on this? So far we have not received answers on that.

On March 27 the World Health Organization recommended the interviewing of outgoing passengers. The Canadian Alliance at that time said that the government should comply. The federal government was very slow to respond and when it did the results were inadequate. The results were pamphlets, posters and self-screening, which simply was not what the World Health Organization had called for and not what was reasonable. Unbelievably, there were no direct questions at airport checkouts for passengers getting on and off planes. It would have been very simple for passengers going through the checkouts to add one or two questions.

Some members of the Liberal Party said that was what should have happened. Why then did the leadership in the party not make that happen? Even after Health Canada put this measure in place there were several reports of travellers returning to Canada through the Pearson and Vancouver airports from SARS hotspots, sometimes through the U.S. on the way, who were not asked a single question on SARS and who never saw a poster or any other information on SARS.

How about other countries? We know the President of the United States took some quick action. Singapore, which I do not think would be any more progressive than Canada in dealing with health issues, put in place infrared screening and tough quarantines some time ago. Vietnam and Hong Kong put in place temperature screening, something that surely we could have had in place in Canada some time ago and yet for some reason we did not. The government has to answer very honestly to Canadians now why in fact these things have not happened in Canada.

I hate to have to say this but I feel I must, again as a member of the Official Opposition whose job it is to hold the government responsible, but the refusal to fully implement the World Health Organization recommendation may have contributed or helped to contribute to the export of SARS from Canada. Again, for obvious reasons I do not want to say things like that, but I believe, as a member of the opposition, I must. Now I expect some answers from the government on these issues.

[Question No. 189, April 28th, 2003]

Concerning the Canadian Forces: ( a ) how many operational aircraft has the air force had each year since 1940, broken down by aircraft type by year; ( b ) how many operational ships and submarines has the navy had each year since 1940, broken down by ship type by year; ( c ) how many tanks, light armoured vehicles, self-propelled artillery and towed artillery and other heavy equipment has the Army had each year since 1940, broken down by equipment type by year; ( d ) how many regular force personnel have the Forces had each year since 1940, broken down by army, navy and air force regular force personnel by year; and ( e ) how many reserve force personnel have the forces had each year since 1940, broken down by army, navy and air force reserve force personnel by year?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, April 10th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-13 at third and final reading. The bill deals with assisted human reproductive technologies and related research and is an extremely important piece of legislation.

As I listen to members from all the different parties in the House, I find that I can support many of the points made by members from each political party. Then there are some positions that I certainly cannot support, positions that are presented by members from all different parties as well.

This is an extremely important bill because it deals with issues of hope: hope for having a child when someone otherwise could not have one and hope for finding a cure or an effective treatment for diseases where until now there has been none. Hope is an important part of the bill. It also deals with some very difficult ethical issues. I am going to touch on these issues today as well in the final opportunity I will have to speak on the bill.

I want to say that certainly there are some things we support in the bill; some of them are prohibited by the bill and others are allowed. As a starting point, I want to quickly outline some of them.

I fully support, as I think probably all members of my political party do, bans on reproductive and therapeutic cloning, on chimeras, on animal-human hybrids, on sex selection, on germ line alteration, and on buying and selling embryos and paid surrogacy. I fully support these bans. We also support an agency to regulate the sector, although we do have some concerns about the agency and the way it would be set up. We have put forth recommendations for change and some of those have not happened.

On the issue of cloning, the Canadian Alliance opposes human cloning as an affront to human dignity and individuality and human rights. We have repeatedly spoken out against human cloning, urging the federal government to bring in legislation to stave off the potential threat of cloning research in Canada. In fact, this has been a large part of what we have dealt with in regard to the bill. In September 2001 we tabled a motion at the health committee calling on the government to immediately ban human reproductive cloning entirely. The Liberals deferred a vote on the motion. Their preference was to deal with cloning in a comprehensive reproductive technologies bill.

While we are not entirely happy with what happened, we are pleased with Motion No. 13 by a member of the governing party, which was passed in the House at report stage and which forecloses on any possibility of new cloning techniques getting by the bill's cloning prohibition. We had a grave concern with this.

I am going to deal with the research using human embryos. Some of the most difficult issues, some of the most emotional issues and in fact some of the greatest hope that stem cell research technology has to offer come under this section.

Stem cell research is an extremely exciting issue when we look at the hope it gives, hope in the areas that I talked about at the opening of my presentation, but there are also some very difficult issues to deal with that are connected with these issues. The bill allows for experiments using human embryos under four conditions. I actually find the language that was used surrounding the bill somewhat objectionable, but I will use that language.

First, only in vitro embryos left over from the IVF process can be used for research. Embryos cannot be created for research, with one notable exception. They can be created for purposes of improving or providing instruction for AHR procedures.

Second, written permission must be given by the donor, although the bill states donor in the singular, and I wonder why that would not be an issue involving both parents.

Third, there can be research on a human embryo if the use is necessary, but “necessary” is left undefined. We have concerns with that.

Fourth, all human embryos must be destroyed after 14 days, if not frozen.

These are things regarding human embryo research that I have concerns with.

Some of the concerns that I and many members of my party have are things that are overlooked, quite commonly, and one is that Bill C-13 would allow the creation of embryos for reproductive research. Canadian law would legitimize the view that human life can be created solely to be used for the benefit of others. Embryonic research is ethically controversial and divides Canadians. We can note that from the numerous petitions we have had in the House, on both sides of the issue. Clearly this is a very difficult ethical issue.

If members will listen to what I will mention later, I would argue that there is really no need to bring that difficult ethical issue into the discussion on stem cell research, because there is so much hope for adult or non-embryonic stem cells. They are safe. They are a proven alternative to embryonic stem cells. The sources of adult stem cells are the umbilical cord, blood, skin tissue, bone tissue, et cetera. There are many sources for adult stem cell research.

Adult stem cells are easily accessible and are not subject to immune rejection, which is a huge drawback to embryonic stem cells. They pose minimal ethical concerns. I have talked about those ethical concerns. Why do we want to spoil an area that has so much hope by bringing into the mix some very difficult ethical concerns? I believe we do not have to bring these concerns into the mix, quite frankly.

Also, the issue of immune rejection of foreign tissue is taken away by adult stem cell research because the stem cells are typically taken from the individual they are used by. Rejection is not an issue because they are from one's own body tissue. That is a huge advantage. As well, adult stem cells are being used today in the treatment of Parkinson's, leukemia, multiple sclerosis and other conditions. They are being used successfully in spite of the fact that adult stem cell research is quite new compared to embryonic stem cell research.

Many research companies have really based the future of their research regarding stem cells on embryonic stem cell research, yet we have found all kinds of problems with it, such as the issue of rejection and the difficult ethical issues. From adult stem cell research, which is in fact quite new, we have found none of these problems. Not only have we have found hope, but we have already found cures or treatments for conditions for which there were simply none previously. It offers great hope, and if we limit the research to adult stem cell research we can bypass those very difficult ethical issues.

Something that I think not many people understand is that in spite of the fact that research has been done on embryonic stem cells for a much longer period of time than it has on adult stem cells, embryonic stem cells and research on embryonic stem cells have not led to a single cure or effective treatment after all that time. Yet adult stem cells so quickly have led to these treatments and to this hope. Why would people object to putting that research aside until we can see just how effective adult stem cell research can actually be?

Great hope is offered by adult stem cell research. Very little has resulted from embryonic stem cell research. I call on the House to stay away from embryonic research. Let us cultivate that hope and the potential of adult stem cell research. Let us take the ethical difficulties out of the question. Let us move forward to provide more than hope, to provide cures and treatments for people who are suffering from diseases where none exist now and to provide children for people who simply cannot have children.

There are many things to support in the bill. Some things we simply cannot support. I look forward to more work in this area.

[Iraq, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the bombing in 1998 in Iraq was the continuation of the 1991 gulf war which was UN sanctioned.

The government has decided not to support our allies in Iraq because there is no UN support for the mission, so it claims.

If the government now acknowledges that the current action in Iraq is in fact a continuation of the UN sanctioned 1991 gulf war, then why will the government not support our allies in Iraq?

[Iraq, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in order for Canadian troops fighting in Iraq to be covered by veterans benefits, the defence minister has to declare Iraq a special duty area. Yesterday the deputy defence minister said that the special duty area created for the 1991 gulf war covers Canadian troops serving in Iraq today.

If the government now acknowledges that the current action in Iraq is a continuation of a 1991 UN sanctioned gulf war, then why are we not fighting with our allies in Iraq?

[Bernard Gooden, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Bernard Gooden was a Canadian, born in Jamaica, serving in the American Marine Corps and fighting for democracy and freedom for the Iraqi people. He was killed in action last Friday.

On behalf of all members of the House I want to send our sincere condolences to the family of Mr. Gooden.

Corporal Gooden took his oath and became a Canadian citizen only last summer. He loved this country, its way of life and its values. He served in defence of those values, first in the Canadian army and then in the U.S. Marine Corps.

Many Canadians are serving this same cause in Iraq, including the son of the member for Wild Rose, who also serves in the U.S. Marine Corps.

I ask all members of the House to join me in honouring the sacrifices made by men and women like Corporal Gooden in defence of the values that we as Canadians share with our American neighbours and with freedom loving people everywhere.

May God bless and protect them all.

[Situation in Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, what was clear from the Prime Minister's speech is that he and his government are in full retreat on this issue. The Liberals simply took a position based on public opinion. There was no principle behind it other than it was an easy decision to make because public opinion was 80% in favour of the position they took. However that position is changed now, so of course the government--

[Situation in Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I hear a member of government saying that we should not play politics on this issue. That is laughable. When the Liberals put forth a motion there is nothing but politics. If they were serious about what they were saying, they would support our motion of last Thursday. I read out the motion. What possible reason could they have for not supporting that? They are playing the most disgusting kind of politics I have ever seen. I think Canadians deserve better.

The member has raised a very important issue. The three leadership candidates, the member for LaSalle—Émard, the heritage minister and the finance minister, absolutely have a responsibility to come out and tell Canadians their position on this issue. Because they have not done that, we have to believe they fully support the position of the government, whatever that is. I wonder if any Canadian will want any of those three members to lead this country when they are simply unwilling to come out and take a position on an issue that is so vital to this country. None of them have, which leads me to believe that they fully support the position of the government.

[Situation in Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here to speak to the government's motion today, although when we look at what is happening it is clear that this is simply a move on the part of government to do damage control.

The government is in trouble. It has shown a complete lack of leadership on an issue that is of vital interest to the country. It knew it was in trouble so the Prime Minister was sent off to Winnipeg. It has the finance minister, the former finance minister and future leader of the Liberal Party, the member for LaSalle—Émard, saying that the government had nothing to do with the anti-Americanism but neither the Prime Minister nor the government did anything to put a stop to that. This has hurt our country. Now that is showing up and the government is in damage control mode. Of course it has to be because its lack of leadership on this issue has indeed been damaging.

I will go through the government's motion piece by piece. The first section of the motion reads:

That this House re-affirm:

the substantial sense of the House, voted on March 20, 2003, in support of the government's decision not to participate in the military intervention in Iraq;

However I want to be clear that while that did pass the House, it certainly was not supported by this party and will not be supported by this party. We believe Canada should have been there with our allies to help remove Saddam Hussein and his regime, so we could get on with rebuilding that country, freeing the world and the area of this threat with weapons of mass destruction. We certainly did not support the motion, nor, in my opinion, should anyone else in the House have supported it .

The second part of the government motion reads:

the unbreakable bonds of values, family, friendship and mutual respect that will always characterize Canada's relationship with the United States of American and the United Kingdom;

So says the second clause of their motion today.

However the government's words and actions over the past months have shown exactly the opposite in fact. They have shown that the government and the members of the government, including cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister himself, have no respect for our friends to the south, our American neighbours. They have spoken out against our British allies and friends as well in many ways over the last months of debate. That hardly jibes with the second clause in their motion today.

The third clause of the motion reads:

our pride in the work of the members of the Canadian Forces who are deployed in the Persian Gulf region;

The government is here to say that it supports with pride the troops but it has done nothing to support our military personnel in action.

I will come back to that later because I believe that is probably the most despicable thing the government has done in this whole issue. The lack of leadership is one thing but not showing support for our serving men and women, not even acknowledging that they are laying their lives on the line on behalf of Canadians to rid the world of Saddam Hussein and his regime and the weapons of mass destruction, not even acknowledging that that is in fact what is happening, is absolutely unthinkable. Yet that is what the government has done.

The motions goes on to state:

our hope that the U.S.-led coalition accomplishes its mission as quickly as possible with the fewest casualties;

Yet the government continues to say that it is against regime change.

What exactly is the government saying? It wants the coalition members to be successful but it does not want Saddam Hussein and his regime removed. I would like the government to explain that. I think the Prime Minister still said that he does not support regime change.

I would like the government to explain to Canadians how on earth we can start rebuilding in Iraq and start providing the kind of aid and humanitarian action that is necessary if we leave Saddam Hussein and his regime in power. I simply cannot understand how the government can take those absolutely diametrically opposed positions and yet that is what it has done.

The government further states in its motion:

the importance of self-restraint on the part of all Members of the House in their comments on the war in Iraq while our American friends are in battle;

Translated, that means the government wants to muzzle the opposition.

Why does the government want to muzzle the opposition? It wants to muzzle the opposition because the opposition took a principled stand on this issue. Other opposition parties, such as the Bloc and the NDP, while I do not agree with their position, at least took a position on the issue while the government did not. It should not be allowed to muzzle the opposition nor will it be allowed to.

Finally, the government says that it reaffirms the commitment of Canada to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq. Again, how can there be any reconstruction in Iraq when the government still takes the position that it is against regime change? I do not know what it wants. Does it want the coalition forces to stop now, hope that Saddam Hussein and his regime will come from the ashes and continue to lead Iraq? If that is the case, how on earth can we possibly do what is necessary to allow Iraqis to build a free and democratic country over time? How can we provide them with humanitarian aid and the rebuilding that is necessary? It simply does not make any sense. The government's motion is not in line with reality.

I just want to point to the motion that the Canadian Alliance put forth last week and that will be voted on here today, the motion that led to the government putting forth its motion that we are debating today. I want to read this and I want Canadians to think as I am reading this. Why on earth would the government not support this motion? I do not know that it is not going to but why else would it put forth its own motion?

The Canadian Alliance motion reads:

That the House of Commons of Canada express its regret and apologize for offensive and inappropriate statements made against the United States of America by certain Members of this House; that it reaffirm the United States to be Canada's closest friend and ally and hope that the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq is successful in removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power; and that the House urge the Government of Canada to assist the coalition in the reconstruction of Iraq.

That was the Canadian Alliance motion from last week. It will be voted on right after question period today. The government, I guess, will not support that motion. I would like Canadians to ask themselves and to ask members of the government exactly why they feel they cannot support that motion. It is difficult for me to understand.

The Prime Minister in his presentation said that the government stood on principle on this whole issue of what we should do with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. I think the position was based on principles and I want to go quickly through some of those principles.

I think the government's position was based on the principle of not making a decision when one is needed. It was based on the principle of not supporting our allies again and again over the past months. The government's position has been based on the principle of not contributing to removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. It has been based on the principle that Canada would be a spectator on the sideline, rather than an active participant in carrying out its responsibility as a serious nation in the world.

The government's action is based on the principle of reducing our country to a position where we have little or no influence in the world community. It is based on the principle of not recognizing that we do have members of the Canadian Forces who are contributing to removing Saddam Hussein and his regime. The government denies that. It is absolutely unthinkable that the government will not even recognize that so that these people can at least get the satisfaction of knowing that their country and their government recognizes that they are putting their lives on the line on behalf of their country in a very worthy cause, that of removing Saddam Hussein and his regime. That is probably one of the most despicable things the government has done on principle over the past years and over the past months.

The government on principle has taken the position that Canada should contribute aid to Iraq but do nothing to contribute to the removal of Saddam Hussein. How can we provide that aid if the regime is still in place? It has acted on the principle that there should be no regime change but now supports Saddam's demise, I think, but I do not know how it squares that. It has acted on the principle--and this is the real principle--that taking a stand based on polling done is the only thing that matters to the government.

Those are the principles on which the government has stood. I would suggest to hon. members that none of those principles show the leadership that Canadians deserve from a government and have not been given by the government.