Leon Benoit

[Iraq, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, a show of force by amassing troops near the Iraqi border has worked before. In 1995 it forced Saddam to back away from invading Kuwait for a second time. Last year it forced Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq so they could do their work.

Now it is the best chance to force Saddam Hussein to actually back down and disarm without going to war. Why will the government not take action to prevent war in Iraq?

[Iraq, January 31st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, providing a deterrent, a strong coalition show of force, is the best chance we have of avoiding war in Iraq.

The Canadian Alliance has been calling for months for the government to contribute troops to the international show of force aimed at encouraging Saddam Hussein to turn over his weapons of terror.

Why will the government not stand with its allies, Britain, Australia, the United States and others, to provide this deterrent to Saddam Hussein so that he will destroy his weapons of mass destruction, to provide that message in the only language he understands?

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, I do not anticipate a war in Iraq either. I am still hoping that a big enough show of force amassed on Saddam Hussein's doorstep will prevent war in Iraq, and that is what the debate is about tonight.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, that is a good and fair question. I think that what we have to again remember is that the onus was on Saddam Hussein, and still is, to turn these weapons of mass destruction over to UN inspectors.

We are now 15 resolutions down the road because no action has been taken. We have followed a policy of appeasement and that is why we are facing an extremely difficult situation. This situation would never have developed had nations gotten together and showed that they were serious about enforcing the UN resolutions.

Now, not only are we facing real prospect of war in Iraq, but we are facing a real prospect, and I think sadly, that the United Nations could lose its relevance in terms of a security body in the world.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, I have heard that comment many times before. Each situation of course is quite different. Certainly the situation in North Korea is entirely different from the situation in Iraq from a couple of points of view.

It was only very recently that the western world discovered that North Korea was so far along in developing atomic weapons. There is still hope for a process of negotiation to be successful in North Korea. But a huge mistake was made in North Korea back in 1994 when that type of a country with that type of regime was given the ability to continue to develop nuclear weapons.

That situation would never have happened had there been a commitment on the part of many countries to take action if North Korea did not respect the agreements it signed not to develop nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, we followed a policy of appeasement and now we have an extremely difficult problem to deal with, but it is a different problem from the one we have in Iraq.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, for me to try to read the mind of someone as unpredictable as Saddam Hussein is impossible. I simply cannot do that. I do know that the only thing Saddam Hussein has responded to in the past was a substantial show of force on his doorstep. That was the only thing he responded to.

In 1995, four short years after the end of the gulf war, he was amassing troops to invade Kuwait. What stopped him? He was stopped only by a large number of forces amassed on the border by the United States.

Last year, what caused Saddam Hussein to agree to open up to UN weapons inspectors? It was the amassing of a large number of troops on his doorstop by the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and a whole list of other countries. That type of show of force is the only hope we have to get through this without war.

How long can we wait to find out what he will do? In North Korea we waited too long. The policy of appeasement in 1994 and around that period in North Korea allowed that country to develop nuclear weapons. We face an extremely difficult situation with North Korea now. Had we not followed that policy of appeasement at that time, had we forced North Korea to comply, we would not be facing that type of nuclear threat today.

I do not want to wait for a similar type of situation to develop in Iraq. I certainly do not want Canadians, Americans, the British, or any other society, including the people of Iraq and area, to face those weapons of mass destruction.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to take part in this debate.

Over the years, Canada has built its global reputation and domestic pride on standing decisively with the international community and our allies in defending peace and security.

A credible threat of military force is a crucial stage in the escalation of diplomatic pressure. It is the only kind of diplomacy that Saddam Hussein has ever understood. In 1995 it forced him to back away from the Kuwaiti border when he had amassed troops in that area to attack Kuwait once again, four short years after the end of the gulf war. Only the amassment of American troops in large numbers encouraged him to back away from that. Last year it forced him to readmit weapons inspectors. Now the credible threat of military force may be our last chance to avoid war in Iraq.

The credible threat of military force is a diplomatic option which we simply cannot afford to bypass. Unfortunately it is a tool not currently included in Canada's diplomatic or military toolbox. There is too little Canada can contribute to an international effort to disarm Iraq.

While our allies mount a significant display of international force in the face of Iraqi recalcitrance, Canada's military is gasping for breath on the sidelines. The government has refused time and time again to give any indication of what the Canadian Forces might be prepared to contribute to the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein. That is probably partly because the government cannot decide whether or not it wants to join the effort at all, but it is partly because Canada's military will have to scrimp and scrape to find equipment and personnel to send should that decision be made.

It is the remarkable adaptability, the professionalism and the perseverance of our serving men and women that has allowed Canada to portray our military contribution as credible. It is only the remarkable actions and effort on their part that allows us to portray our military as being credible.

The sorry state of the Canadian Forces is a direct result of a decade of Liberal neglect. As a point of contrast, let us look at what Canada contributed to the war in Iraq in 1991 just before the Liberals took office.

We had 4,000 Canadian Forces personnel serving in Iraq, with up to 2,500 in that theatre at one time, plus a field hospital of 550 staff in Saudi Arabia. We had 2,000 more military personnel operating in Canada and Germany in direct support of the war in Iraq. We had 34 CF-18 fighter jets with up to 26 in theatre at a time, plus a Boeing 707 in-flight refueller.

The navy provided two destroyers and a supply ship, with a total of six Sea King helicopters. I want to remind everyone that of course the Sea King helicopters were 12 years newer then than they are now. There were actually some pilots who were older than the machine at that time. We just will not find that now.

Canada cannot come close to matching that level of commitment today. This contribution in the gulf war was not decisive to the outcome of the war but it was adequate to maintain Canada's credibility and respectability as a nation committed to working with the international community to protect peace and democracy and to uphold international law.

Thanks to a decade of neglect under the government, Canada can no longer command such respect. Any military contribution we can make to the international effort against Iraq today will be indirect and small from a military point of view, and even less when it comes to a diplomatic point of view, because we simply do not have that kind of respect any more.

I want to talk a little about what Canada could contribute to a military effort, either to help provide that deterrence, which is the only thing that Saddam Hussein seems to understand, or to actually be involved in a war in Iraq should that happen.

From the air force point of view, we could provide one or two Auroras for surveillance and one or two Hercules aircraft for tactical transport. The CF-18s are not near the numbers that were provided in the gulf war but they would be limited to operations to protect the base of operations. Because they do not have a communications system which is compatible with that of our allies, they would not be able to take part in a combat role. We would have to borrow, by the way, in-air refuelling just to get our CF-18s over to Iraq. That is the state our air force is in now.

The navy has four or five ships. Three ships are in the area now.

There are insufficient air crews to man our Sea Kings. Even right now we have had frigates go out without helicopters on board because either we do not have the crews or the helicopters simply are not available because of their high repair and maintenance schedules.

In terms of the army, we could likely make a contribution similar to the one in Afghanistan, about 800 troops, including JTF2 and light infantry.

In committee before Christmas, the head of the army, General Jeffery, said that we could provide 300 troops if absolutely necessary, but he said there would be an incredible price to pay. We had better look at any of these commitments; with any of these commitments, there would be a price to pay.

First, any contribution as large as I have laid out here in any one of the services would cause severe strain for our troops and their families. They have been over-deployed already, to the extent that they are having more family problems than they have ever had before. Many of our well trained, very professional soldiers simply are not willing to stay in the military under these circumstances and many are suffering from severe operational stresses and injuries. One just cannot keep up that kind of schedule year after year.

Second, the commitment I talked about for the army is hypothetical because we do not have the strategic airlift to get our troops and their equipment there.

For example, for the flood in Manitoba and for the ice storm here in the Ottawa area and in Quebec, we managed to borrow strategic airlift from the United States so we could move our troops and their equipment to help with those very serious circumstances. For Afghanistan we managed to borrow and beg from our allies strategic airlift to get there.

With the size of the commitment in the area of Iraq, we simply cannot count on getting the strategic airlift needed from our friends and our neighbours to get our troops there. It is highly questionable as to whether we could find a way to get our troops and our equipment there, and we do not have the sealift either. The size of commitment that Canada could make is much less than it was even when the government came into office almost 10 years ago.

I would like to summarize the need for having the military capability to help provide that deterrent, the only thing that Saddam Hussein understands, the threat of force, the very real threat of force. I have heard many members tonight question that there is a serious threat that we all face. Many have said, “What threat do we face here in Canada?” I would like to remind people.

First, Saddam's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction pose a grave threat to international peace and security. Saddam could use these weapons for mass terror or transfer them to terrorist allies. He has many allies when it comes to terrorist groups. We have seen a list of them. The weapons inspectors and others have come up with lists of groups that are quite willing to work with Saddam Hussein. We know that threat is very real.

In terms of weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqi regime has developed weapons of mass destruction, defying numerous UN Security Council resolutions. I mentioned this before; 15 resolutions and they have ignored every one of them. Resolution 1441 is the lastest. The weapons inspectors said clearly Iraq's regime is simply not complying.

All those weapons of mass destruction, the roughly 30,000 chemical warheads, the 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas, the 400 biological weapons, the 26,000 litres of anthrax, as well as botulinum, VX nerve agent and sarin gas, are not pretty weapons that we are talking about. Most of these deadly weapons of mass destruction have not been accounted for.

A UN resolution put in place the ceasefire. There never was an armistice to end the gulf war; there was a ceasefire. We are still operating under a ceasefire and Saddam Hussein agreed to the terms of that ceasefire. He agreed to turn all weapons of mass destruction over to UN weapons inspectors. The United Nations and the weapons inspectors say very clearly that he has not complied.

What more proof do we need that the threat is very real and is still there? What dictator in the nature of Saddam Hussein has ever done something like that in secret? How many in this House are really willing to take him at his word that Iraq has destroyed its weapons of mass destruction? I suggest that there would be no one. I hope there would be no one after giving this situation clear thought.

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, I have heard from the member in his presentation and from many other members in the House today, especially from the governing party but from the other opposition parties as well, that we should give Saddam Hussein more time. The question that has to be asked is how much more time?

The first resolution that Saddam Hussein agreed to, which started this process since the gulf war, was United Nations Security Council resolution 687 which laid out the conditions of the ceasefire. In that resolution which Saddam Hussein agreed to, the onus was on Saddam Hussein to turn over to the weapons inspectors all of his weapons of mass destruction. It was not the responsibility of the inspectors to find them, which is like looking for a needle in the haystack; the responsibility was on Saddam Hussein to turn the weapons over to them so that they could either destroy or supervise the destruction of these weapons.

The United Nations itself put some numbers to these weapons shortly after the gulf war. It said there were about 30,000 empty chemical warheads found, about 550 artillery shells with mustard gas, 400 biological weapons, 26,000 litres of anthrax, as well as botulinum, VX nerve agent, sarin gas and so on. That is what the United Nations weapons inspectors said that Saddam Hussein had and that is what the weapons inspectors say has not been accounted for to this date. Very little of this product has been accounted for to date and it is 11 years later.

We have gone through a series of 15 resolutions now, always trying to fill a loophole that Saddam Hussein found which he used as an excuse not to comply with the initial ceasefire agreement. We have given him 11 years.

The inspectors have expressed concern that he is continuing to build weapons of mass destruction. We know he would use them because he has used them already on tens of thousands of people, and he has threatened us. He is complicit with dozens of terrorists groups that have made it very clear they would be all too willing to use the weapons on western countries, including Canada.

I have to ask the member, knowing all this and knowing the very real threat that Saddam Hussein and his regime pose to our country and to other western nations, just how much time should we give this dictator?

[Iraq, January 29th, 2003]

Madam Chairman, it is interesting to listen to the hon. member. His presentation was indeed well thought out, but what struck me is how different it was from the other presentations on his side of the House. When we listen to the members of our party, we will see that there are a lot of common themes in the comments made, because there is some common background given to caucus, I think.

I would like to ask the member whether in his caucus there have been substantial discussions on this issue of the war in Iraq. Have the members of his caucus been given common information on the war? If so, why does his presentation quite frankly sound more like a Canadian Alliance presentation, and that is a compliment, than the many and varied presentations from that side of the House?

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, January 28th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motions in Group 4. I commend the member who just spoke for her comments on Motion No. 72. I am certainly willing to consider her comments on Motion No. 71, although it is important to remember that men are also affected by reproductive technology, but she has done that. I appreciate her reminder and recognition of the fact that Preston Manning, who was for some time the leader of the Reform Party, played a key role in helping to craft this legislation.

I do not think there has been anything this exciting in medical research for some time as the whole issue of assisted human reproduction, and from listening to the speakers today we can tell that. There is excitement. There is actually a renewed interest in science on the part of many of our younger people because of the potential. They are already receiving benefits from stem cell research.

There are very few issues surrounded by more concern and controversy than this issue. For this reason it is the responsibility of all of us in the House of Commons to deal carefully and thoughtfully with this important legislation which regulates stem cell research activities and assisted human reproduction. That is what we are doing as we go through these amendments and move on to debate on this issue at third reading stage.

The Group 4 motions deal with a fairly wide range of issues in the legislation. Some of these have been discussed already, and I have heard some excellent debate on these issues. When considering these issues, it is important that we look at some of the base issues and the basic facts about stem cell research and the issue of adult stem cell research as compared to embryonic stem cell research.

I will to take a bit of time in considering the Group 4 motions to compare and contrast the benefits and the pitfalls of these two sources of hope, and they truly are sources of hope. As I go along, the House will see that certain conclusions can be reached about adult stem cell research as compared to embryonic stem cell research. I will start from foundation comments on these two different sources of hope.

First, adult stem cells are easily accessible, which is a huge advantage. Another huge advantage is the fact that they are not subject to tissue rejection and pose minimal ethical concerns. Ethical concerns are important in the debate on stem cell research.

On the other hand with regard to embryonic stem cell research, cells are derived from embryos and implanted in a recipient. They are foreign tissue and thus very much subject to immune rejection. In most cases that leads to years and years anti-rejection drug therapy which is a very expensive and very dangerous kind of therapy. That is the difference between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research.

Second, adult stem cells are being used already to treat Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis and spinal injuries, while research using human embryos has not yet lead to any healing therapies. We should focus our energy and scarce resources on research that is now already making a difference. That is important to know.

If we look in contrast to stem cells taken from embryos, rats that were injected grew brain tumours in 20% of the cases. When there is that kind of response to early research, we have to wonder how long it would take to get any kind of situation where these could actually be used in the treatment of some of the serious diseases which are being tackled by stem cell research.

I just want to quote a researcher from Cambridge University on this issue. He said “I don't think this will be a treatment in humans for quite some time”. That was from BBC News on January 8, 2002.

What a thing to do to a person. Someone who is looking for a miracle cure and the hope that stem cell research can provide ends up with something like a brain tumour. There is the hope and then the terrible, bitter reality in finding that one has a brain tumour resulting from something that was hoped would be a miracle cure. There is a long way to go when it comes to embryonic research. As I have said, there already have been a lot of very positive results from adult stem cell research.

The standing committee said, “in the past year, there have been tremendous gains in adult stem cell research in humans”. We also heard that after many years of embryonic cell research with animal models, the results had not provided the expected advances.

We have heard, and I have certainly heard, from many of the companies that have invested millions and billions of dollars into stem cell research. They have placed all or most of their hope on embryonic stem cell research. Quite frankly they have been bitterly disappointed in the results, but those companies that have focused more on adult stem cell research already have had tremendous results which are very encouraging. The standing committee recognized that fact and that situation.

On the other hand, medical therapies developed using human embryos may be refused by people who do not believe they are ethically derived. Why require people who find this morally objectionable and who are extremely ill and in a very difficult situation violate their consciences to be made well if adult stem cells show at least as much promise? That seems to be the case and I will go through some of the evidence to demonstrate that.

Before I get into some of the examples, I want to point this out. In its presentation the CHIR said this that research using adult stem cells would also be eligible for funding under specific conditions, making it seem that maybe adult stem cell research has some promise as well so it will make it eligible. In fact the reality is that it seems that most of the hope is with adult stem cell research.

Canada is already the leader in adult stem cell research. For example, by supercharging adult blood stem cells with a gene that allowed them to rapidly reproduce, the team of Canadian researchers at the University of British Columbia healed mice with depleted blood systems. Someday these adult stem cells could replace bone marrow transplants in humans. What an advance and what an exciting thought that is, when it comes to people with the diseases which involve bone marrow. It would be a huge advance for them.

There are other examples. There are numerous examples of recent advances in adult stem cell research as well as the ones I have mentioned already. Researchers have found evidence that stem cells circulating in the blood stream can grow new tissue in the liver, gut and skin. Adult stem cells are therefore more versatile than previously thought. This is something that was totally unexpected by the researchers who dealt with stem cell research in the early phases. They believed that embryonic stem cells would be the cells that would be able to adapt better. Instead they found that some of the adaptation from embryonic stem cells led to some very unstable situations and some serious problems.

The University of Minnesota Stem Cell Research Institute has shown that adult bone marrow stem cells can become blood vessels. Will that not be an advancement when it can be fully developed? The researchers said, “The findings suggest that these adult stem cells may be an ideal source of cells for clinical therapy”. That was from the University of Minnesota press release of January 30, 2002.

At the Duke University Medical Centre, researchers turned stem cells from knee fat into cartilage, bones and fat cells. The researchers said, “Different clinical problems could be addressed by using adult cells taken from different spots throughout the body, without the same ethical concerns associated with embryonic stem cells”. That is very important because we could then avoid the ethical questions that result from embryonic stem cells.

I would like to conclude that on this issue the official opposition minority report calls for a three year prohibition on the experimentation with human embryos. Let us give adult stem cells a better chance. We have seen some wonderful results and we will see exciting results into the future.