Jack Frazer

[Bosnia-Hercegovina, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Yesterday for the first time in its 44 year history NATO forces launched an offensive air attack, in this case on ground positions of Bosnian Serbs. This follows a recent downing of Serbian aircraft violating a no fly zone over Bosnia.

Was the minister informed of these attacks before they took place and if so, did he approve of these NATO air attacks on Serbian positions?

[Commemorative Medal, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, although it may be a trifle repetitive, my speech will deal with a historical aspect of Dieppe. I think this is not inappropriate when one considers the importance of what happened at Dieppe and the impact it had on Canadians.

Just before dawn on August 19, 1942 a swarm of landing craft approached the coast around the French town of Dieppe on the English Channel. The largest raid in history, code named Jubilee, was on. A flotilla of 250 small naval craft was engaged and overhead the largest single air battle of the war was about to commence.

The attack on Dieppe was planned as a reconnaissance in force ostensibly to assist the capability of the allies to launch large scale amphibious assaults against German defences in Festung Fortress Europe. Notwithstanding their lack of combat experience, almost 5,000 Canadian troops conducted the frontal assault on Dieppe. Supporting their efforts were battle hardened British commandos assigned to attack and subdue German coastal batteries to the east and west of the town. Their attack on the guns at Varengeville-sur-Mer to the west was completely successful. But at Berneval to the east they were not.

The town of Dieppe in peacetime, a pleasant minor resort, had in war become a fortress. Though the town itself was of slight importance, the Germans saw in Dieppe an obvious point for a British attack. It was within range of RAF support and it was familiar as the terminal of the Dieppe-Newhaven ferry.

The two storey casino fronting the beach had been heavily fortified. The beach itself was covered by machine gun points along the housefronts and at the ends by pillboxes and a tank set in concrete.

These strong points together with guns sited in caves on both headlands of the horseshoe shaped harbour permitted raking fire right across the beach. While the British commandos achieved partial success, overall Dieppe has been assessed as a major disaster.

My purpose today is to speak in support of the proposal to honour those who fought at Dieppe, not to cast blame on the planners of Operation Jubilee.

Notwithstanding, it is worth noting that Lord Lovat, leader of the successful British commando group at Dieppe, later commented: "Only a foolhardy commander launches a frontal attack with untried troops, unsupported, in daylight, against veterans dug in and prepared, behind concrete, wired and mined approaches, an enemy with every psychological advantage".

The raid on Dieppe lasted only nine hours but of the nearly 5,000 Canadians involved more than 900 were killed, 1,900 were captured and of those more than 600 were wounded. As prisoners of war they would spend the next three years in captivity.

Dieppe accounted for more casualties than Canada sustained in the 11 months between the D-Day landings at Normandy in June 1944 and the German surrender in May 1945.

The assault on Dieppe also became the scene of the largest air battle of World War II. Sixty-six squadrons, Spitfires, Hawker Typhoons and Hurricanes, about 730 single-seat fighters, flew 2,111 sorties in which 88 aircraft were lost.

Dual purpose aircraft and light bombers, Bostons and Blenheims, also supported the operations, losing 18 aircraft in the effort. In all 106 aircraft and 81 airmen were lost. Included were 13 Canadian aircraft and 10 pilots. German losses were 48 aircraft.

Assessing losses, the pilot casualties were considered moderate, the sailors, heavy. But for the soldiers and marines where the casualty rate reached nearly 60 percent, they were devastating. Overall, the casualty rate averaged more than 40 per cent, the highest in the war for any major offensive involving the three services. Many units were decimated beyond their ability to function as recognizable entities.

In the assault at Puys east of Dieppe, of the 500 men of the Royal Regiment of Canada and the Black Watch Royal Highlanders of Canada who landed, only six returned without wounds. Many landing craft never reached the beach and of the 27 tanks landed, only half managed to cross the sea wall and none penetrated the tank barriers protecting the town itself. Eventually all 27 had to be abandoned.

Two Canadians, Honorary Captain J. W. Foote of the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry and Lieutenant Colonel C. C. Merritt, commanding officer of the South Saskatchewan regiment, received the Victoria Cross for their actions at Dieppe. Lieutenant Colonel Dollard Menard, commanding officer of the Fusiliers de Mont-Royal, was badly wounded and decorated with the Distinguished Service Order for his gallant leadership.

Lord Mountbatten, commander of the combined operations headquarters which planned Operation Jubilee said Canadians "paved an example of courage, and everything they possibly could be called upon to do, they did".

Another planner and Jubilee's naval force commander, Captain Hughes-Hallett, said: "The thing to remember was that they," the Canadians, "did the operation and that is more than can be said for some of the crack formations which had been selected for earlier operations. The great thing was that Canadians were not only brave but they were bold as well. They were prepared to chance their arm and it was that that made the Dieppe operation possible".

The assault on Dieppe has been described in many ways. The Encyclopaedia Britannica states: "It furnished useful lessons for the future in the problem of invading a well-defended coast. Although the cost was very high it showed the possibility of achieving a large-scale landing under modern conditions while bringing out mistakes that were to be avoided".

General Dwight Eisenhower credited Dieppe with "having provided many useful lessons".

Just a few months after the raid Lord Beaverbrook confronted Mountbatten at a dinner party saying: "You have murdered thousands of my countrymen. You took those unfortunate Canadian soldiers. They have been mown down in their thousands and their blood is on your hands".

The Canadian Encyclopaedia says of Dieppe: "The raid did provide valuable experience for subsequent amphibious assaults in North Africa, Italy and most notably Normandy of 6 June, 1944". It then goes on to say it was a major disaster.

Brian Loring Villa in his book Unauthorized Action classifies Dieppe as a historical tragedy.

Accepting all these viewpoints and after the fact assessments of the raid, we should remember that at Dieppe Canadian troops, fighting in their first major action of the second world war, acquitted themselves with determination, bravery and honour. Under the conditions imposed they were involved in an impossible task. This fact should be registered, regretted and not forgotten.

The Canadians who participated in Operation Jubilee deserve our respect, our admiration and our proud recognition. If ever a battle has been worthy of commemoration by presentation of a medal to those who took part, Dieppe is such a battle.

I urge this House to give unanimous support to private member's motion No. 143 so that Canada can at long last provide tangible recognition of a sad but proud day in our history.

In just four months it will have been 52 years since the assault on Dieppe. Even the youngest participants who survived are now in their seventies. It is long past time for Canada to officially recognize the Canadians who fought at Dieppe.

[National Defence, March 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, all Canadians were disconcerted and disappointed by the incident that occurred in Somalia. We are watching with great interest the outcome of the courts martial.

We agree with the government that the appropriate time to discuss phase two in detail is following those courts martial when all the details are known.

We will be very attentive to the results of that phase two investigation and even more interested in the recommendations of the minister and chief of defence staff as to how to rectify it to ensure that this does not happen again.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to address the foreign affairs review from the standpoint of its relationship with and to defence considerations.

As we have heard before in this place, the end of the cold war and the reduction of the antagonism it engendered between the two superpowers has unhappily not resulted in a world that could look forward to an extended peaceful coexistence.

The world today is probably more volatile and unstable than it was when the Warsaw pact and the iron curtain were alive and well. As a result there continues to be a need for effective defence forces and co-operation in defence matters between like minded people.

There are those who would disagree with this assessment, those who think that Canada should show the world the way by dramatically reducing the Canadian Armed Forces and concentrating those that are left on peacekeeping and community assistance projects.

As idealistic as I am, I cannot agree with this philosophy. Canadians enjoy an excellent way of life and an excellent standard of living. One of the reasons this is so is that over the years we have been willing to commit Canadian support to assist in maintaining democracy and freedom not just at home but in almost every part of the world.

As my colleague pointed out earlier, we are involved in several such endeavours at this moment. Unhappily there are those who mistakenly think that the people in the armed forces tend to be war minded and supportive of belligerent or strong arm policies.

I am here to assure members that while they may be many things, Canadian service men and women are not stupid. They are fully aware that if as a result of deliberate escalation or inadvertent error, a shooting war should develop they as trained members of the armed forces will be first in the line of fire.

No, the men and women of the Canadian forces are very much in favour of keeping the world at peace. They also know that the awareness developed between people in co-operative defence forces often spills over into many other aspects of international relationships.

Thus defence considerations can have considerable impact on foreign relations. As evidence let us examine some of the relationships that have come about as a result of our participation in two world wars, the Korean war, NATO, NORAD, the gulf war and other co-operative military efforts.

In so doing, we find that these affiliations have enabled or helped to enable a level of trust and comradeship which has led to a better relationship between our countries, to increased interest in our problems, to more understanding and willingness to accept our position even on matters totally unrelated to things military and finally to increase trade and co-operation between the nations concerned.

For instance, although it is now 50 years since Canadian forces liberated Holland toward the end of the second world war, there is still a special place and warmth in the minds of Netherlanders when they think of, relate to and deal with Canadians today. This special relationship extends beyond those who were physically there during the liberation. It has been taught in school and passed down, so that no matter the age that good feeling is there.

This does not mean that the hard-nosed Dutch businessman or woman will not attempt to drive the hardest bargain and extract the best deal when dealing with his or her Canadian counterpart. It does mean that there will be an underlying warmth and some assurance of fair play in the negotiations.

Moving north, our relationship with Norway is favourably affected and influenced by the many Norwegians who took their flying training in Canada during World War II. Not only did they take their flying here, many of them took Canadian wives back to Norway with them after the war.

Unquestionably, these experiences have resulted in a far better relationship between our two countries than would have prevailed had they not occurred. These relationships have been further deepened and strengthened by our mutual participation in NATO. In fact, it would be fair to say that Canadian defence forces operating with or in some cases against other countries have substantially enhanced Canada's stature in the world.

While we are examining how we should shape and conduct our foreign affairs, it would be an expensive and ill-advised oversight to overlook the lucrative opportunities and benefits to be achieved through military co-operation.

Ideally this foreign policy review should have been completed prior to the commencement of any defence policy review. After all, defence policy should be a logical and supportive extension of foreign policy.

Because it has been necessary to convene and conduct these two studies concurrently, it is vitally important that the two committees work closely and co-operatively with each other, exchanging information and keeping updated as the reviews progress.

Moving away from North America and Europe for a moment, I am certain that in their considerations the joint standing committee on foreign affairs and international trade will appreciate that not all democracies are the same and that unlike Canada, in many countries the military is an integral part of government. For example, this is so in Tanzania.

When Tanzania was first establishing independence and requested assistance, Canada dispatched a Canadian forces training team to Tanzania to carry out in-country training there and brought the Tanzanian peoples defence force members to Canada to attend Canadian military training schools here.

Many of those Tanzanian trainees are now experienced senior officers who have considerable influence in their government and who still harbour feelings of warmth and respect toward Canada as a result of their experience with our military personnel. Although now on a much smaller scale, this co-operation continues today.

Make no mistake. These people are Tanzanians first and foremost but a good relationship has been established which can positively influence any negotiations between our two countries.

Considering our interest in and increasing trade with the Pacific rim, it would seem appropriate for the committee to look carefully at the utility of establishing mutually advantageous defence relationships with the countries there. The same rationale applies to our relations with Central and South America.

Whether it be an exchange of military attachés, making training teams available, or opening Canadian forces training schools to their use, good military contracts are an excellent way to improve understanding and co-operation between countries.

One of the often overlooked benefits Canada reaps from Canadian forces involvement overseas is the ambassadorial role that our personnel play. They and in turn our country are liked, respected and in many cases emulated by those they encounter. Also, because these military interrelationships occur across the rank spectrum and thus involve all social walks of life rather than just the relatively high diplomatic level, the effects are far more broadly based.

The results, advantages and benefits of such programs can often far exceed the costs of participation.

To a large extent Canada's prosperity and way of life depends upon international trade and thus on world stability. No one can say that world stability is totally dependent on military defence or assistance pacts. But history has shown that such agreements and particularly those in which Canada has been involved have fostered a better, more predictable and more secure world. In conclusion, while it would be a mistake for the foreign affairs review to concentrate too much attention on defence related

activities, it would be an even bigger mistake to overlook their value.

To reiterate, it is vital that there be continuing close contact between the joint standing committee on foreign affairs and the joint standing committee on defence.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I became excited a few moments ago when the hon. member was mentioning his appreciation that about a third of our national debt is offshore. Therefore it entails a whole bunch of interest dollars leaving Canada and being unusable for our economy. I got really excited when he said the elimination of provincial trade barriers would be a tremendous bonus and benefit to Canada.

I was about to offer him a membership in the Reform Party until he responded to his colleague who said: "How about this infrastructure program"? He endorsed the infrastructure program. Here we are with $6 billion of borrowed money that may create 60,000 jobs that will be gone after the end of two years. Now what do we do? We just pay the interest on the money we borrowed.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said a number of things in reference to the budget which I would like to address. I know that you are going to limit my time in making those remarks so I will limit myself to two points.

The first point is the deficit. The minister mentioned that cutting the deficit would impose costs on the population of Canada. Unquestionably that is true. He also implied that more severe cuts than the present government has made would really impose undue hardships.

Has the minister considered the other cost, the cost of not having taken sufficient measures to cut the deficit? This government has admitted that over the next three years $100 billion will be added to our deficit. Even at a nominal rate of interest of 8 per cent that means that the interest on that additional money will be $8 billion. There is no question that has to come from the taxpayers of Canada. I suspect that it will entail extra taxes.

The minister also mentioned small business and the reluctance of banking institutions to loan them money so they can improve their business. I agree with that, but we too did a survey of small business during the election campaign and prior to it. What they kept telling us was that the best thing that government could do for small business was to reduce taxes and reduce the bureaucracy: "Get out of my pockets and get off my back". They said that if the government does that they can make a prosperous business work. It will get the economy going, people will have more money, they will spend it more and our businesses will flourish.

Has the minister considered the effects that this minimal intrusion into the deficit is going to have downstream because we will now be $600 billion in debt? We are going to have to borrow that money because even then, if we achieve the 3 per cent of the GDP which the government aspires to, we are still going to be borrowing $25 billion in that final year.

Has the minister considered whether this is really the best way to go?

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the minister's comments about selective attention. Basically I think what he was saying was tunnel vision. He was referring to his aim to achieve jobs for Canadians. He referred to the Reform aim or our concentration on the deficit as the be all and end all.

However, in answer to the questions posed to the Minister of Finance less than an hour ago, after finally admitting that his eventual goal should be the achievement of a balanced budget, he volunteered the information, "and that would allow us to reduce taxes". By reducing taxes you enable business to expand and to generate jobs. These are long-term jobs.

If I may quote the hon. minister, he has invested $6 billion, $2 billion from the federal government, $2 billion from the provincial government and $2 billion from the municipal government, all from the same taxpayer and this is going to create 60,000 jobs, I think he said, with various off-shuttles. But these are short-term jobs and they are bought with borrowed money.

I think the answer to the problem of Canada is to get our fiscal situation right and to generate long term jobs so that we own our future rather than owing it to somebody else.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address the problem of infrastructure. I agree with the hon. member that obviously there was a military hand in the cuts that were made. These were not done for political reasons. I appreciate that. I think it is a step in the right direction.

I would question the wisdom of closing either of the two defence colleges, Collège militaire royal in Saint-Jean or Royal Roads Military College in Victoria. The total capacity of the production of the defence colleges has not been sufficient to provide the Canadian forces officer corps with sufficient graduates.

I can speak for Victoria. The University of Victoria does not have the capacity to absorb additional students. By taking this productivity from Royal Roads the number of qualified graduates that will be available has been cut. If these are supplanted by armed forces training prospects it will cut other people out of the program. It is my understanding the university training given at Royal Roads is very slightly more expensive than that given at any civilian university. I suggest the government was premature in shutting down these two universities.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Basically there are some good things in the budget, but there are many things which are incomplete and have not been thought through. Budget day in 1994 was not only a disappointing day for Canada; it was not a good day for Canada's defence force.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, subsequent Reform Party speakers will be splitting their time, to 10 minutes and five minutes for questions and comments.

This morning I would like to address the budget from the point of view of the defence department and first of all to congratulate the government on some good measures it has taken. I have noted it is looking at reducing the rank structure in the Canadian forces and thinning out the level of middle management. Both these items are long overdue and will provide more people at the pointed end and fewer in the administrative support tail.

It is looking to amend its management practices, to delegate and lower the responsibility level to base commanders and other unit commanders, to do away with bureaucracy. This will make the process much more efficient and more cost effective.

It is looking at off the shelf purchases. For far too long Canadians have tended to put in special frills and things that required additional engineering which wound up costing more and taking much longer to implement. I think the off the shelf purchases are a very good idea.

We are looking at contracting out some of the things that Canadian forces personnel currently do. This as well is a step in the right direction.

I understand from the defence document that we are going to look at contracting out flight training at Moose Jaw. I know this has worked very well at Portage la Prairie in basic training and I must admit I have some personal misgivings about putting the training of our air crews into other than military hands. However, certainly it has worked at Portage la Prairie and we should definitely investigate it at Moose Jaw.

I also note that group headquarters has been combined for efficiency and moved air combat, which used to be fighter group headquarters, from North Bay to Trenton. The same will be done

with 10 tactical air group headquarters from St. Hubert to combine with air transport group at Trenton. Again, this is a refining and efficiency measure which will pay dividends.

The government also mentioned some infrastructure reductions, some $850 million over five years by the 1997-98 timeframe. By that time savings will be $350 million a year. I will be speaking to this from the other point of view in a few moments. However, I think all people who have looked at the defence department have been aware that there has been an overabundance of infrastructure in that force and it was time to reduce it.

However, I do think that defence has become an easy target. All parties in the last election, with the exception of the Reform Party, were aiming very strongly at large cuts in defence. I think this may be premature and that people do not appreciate the current state of the defence force.

Basically it has been underfunded since 1972 when Mr. Trudeau made dramatic cuts. He was reminded of the inter-relationship between defence and trade when he tried to make the cuts in NATO and very shortly found out that it would impact dramatically on Canadian trade. He reversed his decision on the cuts he was proposing.

The world situation has changed, without question. The relationship between the two superpowers has evaporated. However, rather than providing us with a more stable world, this has provided a much more volatile world, one which is must less predictable and, I would say, more dangerous.

Currently Canada has more troops deployed on operational missions than at any time since the Korean war. The current strength of the Canadian forces is 75,000 in round numbers. The government is suggesting that this should be reduced to 67,000 in round numbers by 1998. I question the wisdom of these cuts, particularly before we have completed a defence review to establish what we want the Canadian forces to accomplish.

I am not certain at the moment that 75,000 is a sufficient number to do the jobs Canadians will be asking their forces to do. I believe it really is premature to suggest that we should be cutting this number even further.

I am glad to see the reserve force staying constant at 30,000, although I believe there may be some need to expand its uses if we go to the total force concept and it is found to be workable.

Regarding budget cuts, over the period from 1989-97 the previous government had programmed in $14 billion in defence budget reductions. This government has now implemented an additional $7 billion deduction in the defence budget between 1994 and 1999. This is a total of $21 billion over 10 years, a substantial reduction in a budget of only $12 billion. This again has been done before we know what we are going to be asking the defence forces to do. I think this is premature.

These defence cuts have reduced the operations and maintenance budget so that operational and training activities have had to be reduced by 25 per cent. In plain words, this means that the navy has and will continue to sail less. The air force has and will continue to fly less and the army has and will continue to train less. This means less well trained and less capable sailors, soldiers and airmen, and that means a reduced operational capability. There is no question that the training required by the forces increases its ability to do the job we ask it to do. Reducing its training reduces its operational capability.

The government has said that one half of the $7 billion reduction over the five years in the defence budget will come from the cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter project. I remind hon. members that the EH-101 was a 13-year program extending to the year 2002 with the heaviest spending occurring in the years 1998 and 1999. The $5.8 billion to which the government is referring is based on 2002 dollars rather than the original cost for the EH-101 which in 1991-92 dollars was $4.3 billion. I suspect its number is not accurate, its $3.5 billion saving.

Also missing from the figures totally is the cost of the cancellation of the EH-101 program, payments to contractors who had already invested substantial sums in the program. This is estimated to be anywhere between $500 million but more likely close to $1 billion. This appears nowhere in the budget.

The Minister of National Defence said yesterday that this would not be coming from the defence budget, but if it is going to be paid it is paid out of our own budget. Since it is not identified that means it is in addition to the $39.7 billion the government has already estimated.

In addition, the minister points out on page 2 of the budget impact document:

The Department will still have to find the money for replacement helicopters should the requirement be confirmed in the defence policy review.

He said also, and I agree with him, that the likelihood was that the need for these helicopters would be confirmed in that defence review.

Depending on the helicopters that are chosen to be bought, we can spend as much or even exceed the cost of the original EH-101 program. The Canadian environment provides an atmosphere that is perhaps among the most challenging for flying operations the world knows.

Canada is a beautiful country. It is one I have chosen over a many other countries, having visited them. It has many advantages but we have long and rather severe winters. When we have winter weather we have icing conditions. When we have icing

conditions we have problems for flying machines, particularly helicopters.

Whatever airplane we buy it should have the ability to fly in icing conditions. I point out that when the Ocean Ranger went down off the coast of Newfoundland it took 36 human lives with it. Both the Sea King and Labrador helicopters were grounded in Halifax at that time. They were unable to fly because of a combination of icing conditions and fog.

The EH-101 helicopter could have operated in those conditions and may very well have saved those lives on the Ocean Ranger. Any helicopter we buy to operate in Canada whether it be from ships or in search and rescue should be able to have the range, the speed, the capacity and the ability to fly in icing conditions.

Let me move on to another cost saving measure, the reduction of infrastructure. The government has announced that it will close four bases: the base at Cornwallis, the base at Chatham, the base at Ottawa, and the base at Toronto. A total of $185 million is identified in the defence document as the cost of those closures. I do not think they are going to include termination training, allowances for civilians or transfer costs for military personnel.

The gift of the station at Downsview to the city of Toronto as a gift in perpetuity, a park, is a super thing. Is my time up, Madam Speaker?