House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 76% of the vote.
Balkans December 4th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, that points out something very obvious. This is supposed to be a debate. We are supposed to be able to ask questions. We are supposed to be able to ask the minister questions. Obviously the orders are set in such a way that we will not be able to do that.
Peacekeeping November 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I guess I missed the yes or no in that answer. I am sure it was there somewhere.
In my letter to the Prime Minister I asked him for a genuine debate on peacekeeping. In order to have that debate, we require details. We need to know the budget, the maximum duration, the mandate. The government has not even told us the size or the role of the Canadian contingent.
When is the government going to provide these details? Is it just planning to keep Parliament in the dark as usual?
Peacekeeping November 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, every time this government holds a debate on peacekeeping it is a total sham. The decisions are already made and there is no free vote.
Last week I sent a letter to the Prime Minister requesting that he respect the will of Parliament and allow a free vote on a clear peacekeeping proposal. Now that the government has had time to think about it, I would like an answer. Does Parliament get a free vote, yes or no?
Foreign Affairs November 21st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, that is the same answer I have been getting as I have tried to research this through various people. I have talked to the acting director of SIGNET and I have talked to security. It is our allies who are telling us to do something.
In opposition the government whined about patronage, whined about SIGNET costing too much, whined about the $100 million that was being spent. Now the government risks losing not only international trade, it also risks losing co-operation with our allies and losing our reputation. What is the minister going to do to change this?
Foreign Affairs November 21st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, reliable sources confirm that foreign governments are very upset about our SIGNET program of communication between our embassies and Ottawa. SIGNET is leaking. SIGNET is leaking not only our information but the information of our allies.
What has the Minister of Foreign Affairs personally done to respond to the complaints of our allies to ensure that the secret information in SIGNET is kept secret?
Supply November 21st, 1995
Madam Speaker, I am not sure I will get all 20 questions answered, but I will make an attempt.
We are saying that national defence must have better equipment. However before it gets better equipment, we have to target what we are going to do. We have to establish the criteria and then we have to do it.
He talks about the report that was presented. I was on the foreign affairs part of the committee and there was communication between the two committees. The point is that the recommendations were to cut from the top. That has not been done.
If cuts are made at the top that money will be available for the bottom. Cuts should not be across the board but certain things should be targeted. Some things are gone 100 per cent, other things will increase. The sort of slash and burn tactic that the member has in mind is totally not what Reform members have in mind because we will target. We will set our criteria and then we will have something that is efficient. We will apply the same efficiencies that business applies, which government has totally ignored for all these years.
It is a matter of going after the top. Government does not seem to be able to do that. It is too easy to cut from the bottom up.
As for the EH-101s, that should have been looked at very carefully. I am sure the government did, but did it know of the potential costs of the cancellation? Did it really look at all of that?
From what experts say the EH-101 probably was not the helicopter that was needed. What the minister is proposing is probably a good idea, but he has to have his act together. How much does it cost? How many are being bought? How many are needed? That is what has to happen.
Supply November 21st, 1995
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kootenay East. I hope my voice will hang in there. If you see my lips moving and no sound, you will know it has disappeared.
Today's topic is a rather interesting one. At this time I could see a lot better wording than might be part of this question. We should start off by saying as the last member has, how proud we are of our aerospace industry and of our astronauts. Certainly every time we hear the Canadarm mentioned, all of us feel proud of what we have accomplished. Our future is in the area of technology and that is certainly something all Canadians know and are proud of.
However, when we talk about this motion, about Canadian content and about the protection of some industries over others, I
cannot help but go back a little bit in history. I cannot help but go back a little bit in terms of what some of the other members are saying.
I cannot help but go back to the F-18 contract in Winnipeg. Obviously the lowest bid was there and the recommendations were there. The qualifications for doing the job were there. Certainly the people of Manitoba, the people of the west do not forget the party politics that were played in the decision to move the F-18 contract to Montreal. Now we hear the other side of that. Now we hear the fears that we are going to lose this industry for Quebec.
All of us are looking for a free enterprise system in which all parts of Canada are treated equally, where one part does not have favoured status over the other, where we stop playing party politics and we start getting down to what is good for Canada. That should be the emphasis instead of what we are talking about today.
We also have to look at the criteria when we look at defence contracts. Obviously we want to have Canadian content, but not Canadian content if it is not competitive. If it is not competitive, it better get competitive if that industry is going to survive. If it has to be subsidized and protected, then it is obviously very short term and very short sighted planning by that company and by this government.
We also must be aware of globalization and what that means. We are now in a global market. We now have NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. We cannot talk about protecting industry and protecting the inefficiencies of the past.
We have to talk about being competitive in the world. We have the training. We have the technology. We have the people. Let us not hide behind government, behind bureaucracy, or behind rules that set up how we are going to give contracts. Let us do it because we are the best. Let us do it because we are the most competitive and thus we will market our products around the world. That is what globalization and free trade means. It is what the World Trade Organization will mean in 10 years. Canada can do very well in that field. So, let us not be embarrassed and shy and not be out front. Let us not hide behind the past.
We could also be talking about the Department of National Defence today. We all know that it desperately needs new equipment. All of us know of the helicopters. My hon. seatmate here talked about helicopters falling out of the sky. Certainly the search and rescue people need that equipment, but let us have a game plan. DND must have a real game plan, what it needs and what it is going to do. It seems as though we get knee-jerk announcements. We have heard announcements about a $600 million expenditure for helicopters, but the minister does not know for how many. I could not believe what I heard in that announcement.
We obviously need all terrain vehicles. It was shameful what our troops used in the former Yugoslavia. With regard to armaments, we must keep modern and up to date and have the best for Canadians.
Looking at the budgets, we can see that for years we have been cutting budgets and we have increased the requirement for our armed forces. This has done nothing except to cause morale problems and equipment problems in the military.
We need to become diligent shoppers. That does not necessarily mean we have to buy in Canada. Remember, we must be competitive.
This is a very timely topic today. I would also like to know what provisions we have in place to prevent the patronage of the past which was so common. Everybody knew about it and it seems to have carried on into the present government. We need to make sure there are guidelines in place so that this does not happen again. It does not give politicians a good name and it certainly does not give Canadians a good name when this sort of thing takes place. We should not be politicians for sale.
We also have to ask questions about DND and the seemingly constant turmoil. It appears as though it is constantly having problems. No sooner does one crisis go away than a new one surfaces. We have to ask what it is doing to get its act together. That could easily be a topic for today.
I refer to the former deputy minister of DND. I wonder why approximately a year ago he quickly disappeared from the scene to go to the United Nations as if to get him out of town.
What about the EH-101s? How much did it cost to pay those off?
The hon. member across the way mentioned that we should be very proud of our students and graduates who are filling technical jobs. I am very proud of them but I am concerned because at the University of Waterloo for example, 91 per cent of graduates in the electronics area are going to the U.S. for jobs. I am really concerned about that. I am concerned that we spent that money on training. That is a costly resource and we are losing them because they cannot get a job in Canada. We must work on that because they are the best.
We have to talk about peacekeeping as well when we talk about armaments and DND. We need to know what to expect from our military. We need to have that game plan before we actually start talking about and worrying about the content of the equipment we are buying. We need to discuss it in Parliament. We need to discuss what those objectives and criteria are. We cannot keep doing things on a knee-jerk basis. We cannot do things where we have parliamentary debate and the decision has already been announced outside the House. We cannot keep doing that.
We need to do something to restore public confidence as well. There is a great pride in our Canadian peacekeepers. There is a great pride in what we have, but when we send them underequipped and poorly controlled we have problems. We know what that has done to our reputation. We can talk about Somalia; we can talk about Rwanda; we can talk about the former Yugoslavia. All of those are problems which have hurt our reputation. We should be concerned about that.
We need to set up criteria. We cannot go every place. We are not equipped to do that. We do not have the equipment. We know that we must ask about the cost, not that cost is more important than lives, but that is the reality. We cannot go everywhere. We can only afford so much and we have to ask those questions.
In looking at these criteria we do need new equipment. We need to raise morale. We need efficiency. We need to get rid of the bureaucracy that seems to be causing all the problems.
In closing, rather than whining about competition and Canadian content, we should get competitive. We should worry about our place in the marketplace. We should demand a fair and open bidding system. We should get rid of the politics, the patronage and the old line political games that so often go on. That will do more.
Rwanda November 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, that is a very difficult answer to accept, considering the seriousness of the event.
Let us remember that former prime minister Kim Campbell has said that Mr. Fowler tended to downplay events during the Somalia affair. Is it possible that the government was not fully briefed by the UN ambassador about the seriousness of these charges?
Rwanda November 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I was shocked to learn that the Belgian government wants to interview Canadian peacekeeping hero, Romeo D'Allaire, for his involvement in the death of 10 Belgian peacekeepers he was in charge of during the UN mission in Rwanda. UN Ambassador Bob Fowler has known about this for a week, yet Canadians have heard nothing.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Why has the Canadian government not said something about this and told the Canadian public about this very serious event?
Canadian Armed Forces November 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, as we approach another Remembrance Day when all Canadians celebrate the courageous sacrifice of our war veterans, we should be focusing on the way that our troops from coast to coast fought for democracy and freedom in a united Canada.
Unfortunately on October 26 the Bloc member for Charlesbourg issued a press release calling for Quebec members of the military to desert their post and join a new Quebec army the day after a yes vote. This has infuriated many veterans as well as other Canadians, including many constituents in my riding of Red Deer.
The action is so reprehensible that the government must take immediate corrective action. Inciting mutiny in the Canadian forces cannot be tolerated and the government's response to this outrage should make it perfectly clear.