David Collenette

[Canadian Forces Base Cornwallis, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we are reviewing all of the facilities that National Defence has and every aspect of the operations budget of the Department of National Defence in conformity with the promises outlined in the red book.

In the red book we talked about the establishment of peacekeeping centres, and that is actively under consideration. Canada takes second place to none in the world in the development of peacekeeping. We shall keep this in mind when we announce the changes to defence policy later this year and certainly with respect to expenditures over the next 60 days.

[Bosnia-Herzegovina, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister addressed that subject when he was in Brussels a couple of weeks ago.

The former government did sign on with the rest of the NATO nations in not ruling out air strikes in certain eventualities. However the Prime Minister made it clear in Brussels that linkage of air strikes with an attempt to open the airport at Tuzla and to liberate the Canadian contingent at Srebrenica was just not acceptable to the Canadian government.

Our position is that we believe that there are other ways to achieve peace there before we start taking drastic action.

Indeed the Minister of Foreign Affairs made a statement yesterday which has been broadcast widely on television to the effect that the negotiations must still go on and that we prefer a negotiated route before any further escalation.

[Bosnia-Herzegovina, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister has addressed that question.

There are meetings going on in Brussels today and will be in the next couple of days.

As far as the Canadian government is concerned we are most interested and concerned that the Canadian troops in Bosnia are not put at undue risk by any escalation action that may occur as a result of these discussions that are going on.

[Helicopters, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I know he is very interested in military matters.

When we cancelled the EH-101 we did so with the full knowledge that the Sea Kings could last until the year 2000. Indeed the EH-101s would not come on stream until about 1999 and 2000.

I recognize some of the comments made but in the article-I read it this morning-the commanding officer at Shearwater said that as far as he is concerned, like any aging equipment the Sea Kings require more and more maintenance but are perfectly safe.

I flew on one in the Adriatic before Christmas, 70 miles, pitch black in stormy seas. It landed on the ship and got me back here. I think it is a good enough indication of how airworthy they are if they could take me that distance and get back safely.

[Armed Forces Bands, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I gave the answer earlier.

Is it a question that hon. members opposite are trying to denigrate our cultural heritage as we see it in the Canadian military with music and bands? I always thought that the hon. member's party was one that was very concerned about cultural

matters. Now they are showing they are not interested in Canadian culture. Military bands are very much part of Canada's culture and I hope they will continue to support them.

[Armed Forces Bands, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions I have said that in view of the party's commitment, as outlined in the red book, every aspect of our defence budget is under review. I hope when we make our pronouncements on changes in the defence budget, the hon. member and his party will support the government's action.

[Foreign Affairs, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member was in the House a year ago. He should know that the agreement was signed by the previous Conservative government. It was renewed in 1993 and it does provide for individual tests to be conducted bilaterally. The actual tests can be agreed on or cancelled at any time within the framework of that agreement.

All we are doing today is verbally acceding to the request of the United States to have two more tests in 1994 in the same way as we have had tests in the past nine years.

[Foreign Affairs, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct that we had a very fruitful debate last week. That discharged a commitment made by our party in opposition

not to authorize any cruise missile tests in 1994 before the House had a chance to debate the issue fully.

Members will know that in August 1993 the previous government authorized the 1994 test and the planning was well under way when we took office. Given this and given the fact that we will be having foreign policy and defence reviews in the next year where all matters including testing of weapons systems can be debated, the government has decided to proceed with the two tests in 1994 beginning this month.

I should also tell members that we have communicated this in the last hour to the United States government. We have stressed the fact that it should make no presumption about the outcome of the defence and policy reviews Parliament will be seized of later this year, given the very strong feelings on the matter of cruise testing both within the country and certainly within our party.

[Translation]

[National Defence, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to cut $1.6 billion starting April 1 means that we have to make some long range decisions. If we make cuts at the sharp end of the military, i.e. the ability of the military to conduct itself as a true fighting strength and discharge obligations that will be outlined in the defence review, then obviously we are hurting it before we actually decide on the policy.

We are trying to deal with excess infrastructure and surplus capacity, much of which has not been dealt with by previous governments for obvious political and sensitive reasons. We hope to deal with any communities and individuals affected in a most sensitive manner.

I believe all hon. members of the House will probably support us in the drive to bring some efficiency and rationalization to the armed forces. Later this year the defence review will be able to outline the policies required for the military in the year 2000 but will have the ability to discharge those obligations.

[National Defence, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the Liberal Party's red book we talked about a defence review which will be completed later this year with the policy announced probably January 1995.

In the meantime, the red book also talks about the need for $1.6 billion worth of savings from the defence department. These savings will help pay for some of the spending programs such as the infrastructure program to create jobs.

We have a balanced approach. The Prime Minister talked about this earlier in question period. We have to move now because the Minister of Finance wants to know how much we can cut and where before April 1 when the fiscal year starts.