Jack Frazer

[Veterans Affairs, February 21st, 1994]

I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

At age 77 Mrs. Fleming has recently been admitted to hospital with cancer. Will the hon. minister admit there is a sense of urgency to this matter?

[Veterans Affairs, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

A distinguished Canadian war hero and later head of the civil aviation department died in 1990 at age 75. Six months prior to his retirement Mervyn Mathew Fleming and his wife of 29 years were divorced but shortly thereafter were reunited and remarried.

Despite 37 years of marriage, because they were technically divorced when he retired Mrs. Fleming has been denied a widow's pension. In 1992 as leader of the opposition the Prime Minister agreed that this was wrong and promised to pursue the situation with Treasury Board.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure us the government will now take action to see justice done?

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I am already on record with the minister as reflecting the view that I believe that closure of bases and so on should better await the outcome of the defence review. I think it most important that we know what we are doing and why we are doing it before we do it. It is far more expensive and time consuming to try to recover a capability that we have given up than it is to maintain it for just another few months and then say: "All right, now we do not need it". I do agree that we would be wiser to wait until the defence review is completed before we announce base closures and so on.

On the other hand I am assuming because of the multitude of activities that take place at Edmonton perhaps it might not be one that is considered for closure. However, if in the course of the defence review it is revealed that the capability that is vested in Edmonton can be diversified to other bases and the capability that is required is still available then I would say that I would have to opt on the side of Canada and its defence force as a whole rather than leaning toward supporting any particular area in the country.

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was a question there. It was mainly a comment. I would agree with much of what the member said.

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Minister of National Defence on his presentation this morning and my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois on his presentation, although I must say there are some portions of his presentation with which I disagree.

I would like to reiterate the Reform Party's support for the conduct of a defence review. We think it is long overdue and vitally necessary that our country revisit the requirements of Canadian defence.

We also support the establishment of a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. It is my understanding that there would be two committees dealing with this matter if it were not for the consolidation into one.

Senate expertise as evidenced in the 1993 Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs report on Canadian involvement in peacekeeping is but one example of the expertise the Senate brings to bear and can offer. Within reason more heads, particularly knowledgeable heads, are invaluable. It provides for broader input.

The committee at the moment is skewed somewhat eastward, in that there is a lack of western representation on it. I am hoping that perhaps in the representation from the Senate we will see some more western representation to provide a more national mandate.

We are very much in favour of the document's support for consolidation with other parliamentary committees. We think it is important that defence be taken in conjunction with foreign affairs. Obviously it is an adjunct to it. We also think a consolidation with the industry committee to involve defence conversion will best benefit Canada in the conversion from our current defence posture to a different one.

With the end of the cold war, as the minister said, there was great relief throughout our country and throughout the world because it appeared the great menace that had faced us for many years was gone. That to a large measure is true. The Warsaw pact collapsed and there was no hovering menace that appeared to be ready to consolidate or to take over the west.

However more recent happenings have indicated that is not quite the case. We now have a much more volatile world. Nationalism has risen in many areas, including the previous Soviet Union, and there is danger that local conflicts or extended conflicts could erupt in that area.

We have seen the dire consequences of ethnic and religious clashes. They are going on at this moment in the former Yugoslavia. It would be a misnomer to say the world is a safer place now. In fact it is probably more dangerous without the iron fist control we used to see in the Warsaw pact.

A rising threat which we must be concerned with and take account of is the terrorist threat. With the sophistication of modern weapons and the ability to distribute those weapons throughout the world by countries which are a little lacking in foreign exchange and therefore vulnerable to offers of remuneration for the weapons, they are virtually everywhere or can be virtually everywhere in the world. We as an independent country

have to be very conscious of this point and prepared to deal with a terrorist threat.

I guess we should be asking ourselves the following question right now: Are we entering an era of continued instability, or are we simply transiting a time of turbulence and discord? The answer to that question is not readily available. I think we have to await the outcome to see just what is going on. I fear that it may be a more extended period than we would wish.

Traditionally Canada's defence priorities have been, first sovereignty, then mutual defence alliances, aid to the civil power, peacekeeping, and search and rescue. In this defence review nothing should be sacred. Everything should be examined to decide whether or not we want to continue with it, whether we want to reallocate priorities, and whether we can afford to do what we say we are going to do.

For instance, search and rescue is almost a given. People consider that if we have defence forces they will be there to help people at sea, to help people who are lost, to help survivors of air crashes, and so on. However, is this better done by the military, or could it possibly be done by contract with a civilian agency in a cheaper fashion? I think that question must be considered.

We must consider Canadian national needs: the ability to control our air space, to detect and monitor people who enter it, to control our seashores and the approaches to them, and to control our borders. We must be able to provide protection from smuggling, from deliberate pollution, from illegal immigration, from drug trafficking and from overfishing. The question we must deal with is: How much of these tasks must be accepted by the armed forces and how much can be assigned or co-operated with other agencies?

We must look to Canada's international needs and desires. Our mutual alliances come to mind. We have been involved in NATO since 1949. It has been a very successful involvement because in my mind this is what brought the Warsaw pact to its knees. It is what stopped the encroachment into western territory from the east. Although NATO could be recognized as a large relatively inefficient and very expensive enterprise, it has accomplished its purpose. It should be recognized as that.

NORAD is almost considered by some to be an agency we no longer need. We must be very careful in our assessment of NORAD because it also has a space adjunct to it that I think we would ignore at our peril.

Going to the proliferation of various weapons of sophistication in the world right now, there is a very great likelihood we will see strategic missiles in hands we would prefer not to see them in. While NORAD is not in the business of providing a defence against it, it could certainly plot the launch of these missiles and the projected strike zone, where it is going to hit. This was used to some effect in the Persian gulf war when the Scud missiles were tracked from their launch. Their impact was passed as information to our naval vessels in the Persian gulf.

We have to look beyond those two mutual defence alliances to our burgeoning involvement in the Pacific Rim. Is it going to involve a requirement for Canada to join in with some defence alliance with the people in the Pacific Rim area?

Since the beginning we have been involved in UN peacekeeping activities. Probably Canadians in the majority would vote for continuation in these activities. But we have to question very seriously in which ones do we wish to be involved. How much are we willing to commit in funds to providing those? Those funds not only involve the actual deployment of the people who are there. They involve the cost of training those people, of transporting them and of looking after them after they come back.

Again referring to the gulf war and other commitments we have had, we have had naval vessels in the Persian gulf, in the Red Sea, in the Gulf of Aden, in the Indian Ocean, and currently we have vessels deployed in the Adriatic.

It is important to realize that at this moment there are over 700 submarines employed by over 44 different countries in the world today. There are another 150 being constructed at this moment.

The submarine has become the weapon of choice for many nations because it is relatively inexpensive to operate and relatively devastating in its ability to control what goes on. For instance, in the Falklands war, one British submarine tied up the entire Argentinian fleet and kept it out of the action.

Therefore we have to very seriously consider when we deploy our naval forces into other spheres whether we go there as an independent nation capable of providing our own protection or with a force that can add this protection to us. That is a decision we have to take.

We are involved at the moment in a humanitarian assistance mission in the former Yugoslavia. There are many misgivings among many Canadians about the mandate, the effectiveness and the actual involvement of Canadians in this type of theatre.

Finally, of course, we must consider the requirement for Canadians to intervene on ideological grounds where we see a human rights violation situation going on in a country and our

people think there is a requirement for Canadians to be involved. The mission in Haiti at the moment comes to mind.

Finally, we have to consider the terrorist threat that I referred to earlier. It is very likely that at some time there will be a serious terrorist threat posed not necessarily against Canada but perhaps against one of our neighbours or our allies. It could also be posed against us and we must be prepared to deal with that.

To paraphrase from the guidance document, the question that we need to examine in this defence review and answer is should Canada establish and maintain at the lowest possible cost a combat capable total force of naval, land and air forces which is adequately equipped, appropriately supported and properly trained to protect Canadians, their values and their interests at home and abroad.

I suspect the answer to that is going to be yes, although we may be seeing a change in the priorities that we have allocated in the past to those that we will allocate at the finale of this defence review. Our aim should be to give Canadians the defence forces they want and are willing to pay for.

My perception of our task in this defence review differs somewhat from our colleagues in the BQ on one item and maybe with others. I do not know. The bottom line as far as I am concerned should be that within those forces and within the budget that Canadians approve, Canadian defence dollars should be spent on defence and not on ancillary items.

The social benefits traditionally associated with defence establishments which come from employment and military payrolls must take second place to defence requirements.

Finally, the outcome of the defence review should be to answer the needs of Canada as a whole, not those of any one area or region within the country. To my mind we are trying to establish the requirements for Canadian defence forces from Vancouver Island to Newfoundland and from the American border to the North Pole.

We should concentrate on achieving what we think is needed and what we can afford to do. That should be our final game. It is my hope that when the white paper is produced some months after the conclusion and the submission of our final defence review, it will reflect very closely the findings that we come up with in this review.

[Petitions, February 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to rise in the House to present a petition duly certified by the clerk of petitions on behalf of the constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands and the surrounding area.

The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people, binding upon Parliament, to accept or reject two official languages, English and French, for the government and people of Canada.

[The Environment, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Our studies show that the risks of an oil spill drop by 40 per cent when tankers have double hulls. The current time frame for requiring double hulls stretches into the next century.

Would the minister move to accelerate this requirement and reduce the risk of a disastrous oil spill in our coastal waters?

[The Environment, February 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister in her capacity as Minister of the Environment.

My subject is oil spill precautions for Canada's coasts. Last September the state of Washington brought in rules requiring oil tankers transiting the Washington coast to give details of their capacity to deal with a spill, their personnel training and their vessel structure and history. They require that an English speaking officer be on the bridge and that operators must meet local alcohol, drug and work hour requirements. Violations of these requirements carry fines of up to $100,000.

Will the minister move to institute a similar policy for Canadian coastal waters?

[National Defence, February 2nd, 1994]

A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

The Reform Party applauds the signs of fiscal responsibility on the part of the government. Few would disagree that the review is likely to require the closing of several bases.

How can the minister decide which bases to close before the review is complete?

[National Defence, February 2nd, 1994]

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

Late last year the minister announced that he will undertake a major review of the Canadian military to determine what defence forces Canada needs in the new world order. Our party supports the need for such a review.

Could the minister explain to the House why he is now preparing to close military bases across Canada before this review is complete?