Art Eggleton

[Alberta Forest Fires, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Canadian Armed Forces are coming to the aid of fellow Canadians. Some 56 troops including 17 reservists are now taking trucks into the forest fire area to transport firefighters. There are some 600 firefighters and some 24 forest fires in that area of Alberta. They are helping in that effort. They will continue to help in that effort as long as those fires are burning. We want to help fellow Canadians and the people of Alberta.

[National Defence, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member and his party have got things all wrong.

First it was not a retirement party for General DeQuetteville. There were people of all ranks there to discuss and learn about the future of the air force, particularly after 20 years of air force reduction. It did not cost $2 million. The incremental cost was $330,000. It was for a valid conference. The internal auditor will soon be reporting on the matter.

[Health, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I can only say that we are concerned about the health and welfare of all our Canadian forces personnel. I do not know of the specific case the hon. member mentions but I would be happy to look into it.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, maybe if the member goes back to the committee instead of sitting in here he might be able to get some amendments put on the table. We are certainly happy to see him discuss the matter at committee.

In terms of the National Defence Act amendments, as I indicated these are very extensive amendments. They have come through as a result of two things. A lot of the recommendations in there should not be new to the hon. member. A lot of them came out of the Somalia commission report. All of them virtually mirror the report from former Chief Justice Dickson and his committee on the military justice system. They are well thought out by people, including a former chief justice of Canada, as to the kind of updating that is required in the military justice system to ensure that it has within it Canadian values and justice principles that are also acknowledged in the civilian area as being those that are required.

We are updating and streamlining the operations. If the hon. member has some amendments, or his party has some amendments, there has been every opportunity to be heard at the committee. I look forward to the committee reporting back to this House.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Conservatives are not very good at figures, given the way they ran up the deficit, and they seem to have a hard time recognizing that.

They equally have a very difficult time coming to grips with the helicopter purchase. They fail to understand that they were proposing helicopters at a time when we could not afford them. They were military development helicopters which meant that a lot more money was going to go into the development stage before they would fly.

We are buying off the shelf helicopters that are already commercially certified in search and rescue which do not have all of the costs associated with them which their proposal had. We have ended up buying helicopters, and subsequently the maritime helicopters, at 30% less than what they would have paid. That was a shame. The taxpayers could not afford that.

I am very pleased about the search and rescue helicopters that we are buying. Yes, they are a cousin of the helicopter that was in its developmental stage, but getting it off the shelf and commercially certified is a lot cheaper. This helicopter will meet our requirements, which was the most important aspect of this purchase. It went through a very rigorous test and an extensive examination to ensure that it was the helicopter to best meet our operational needs and to do it at a price that was affordable to the Canadian public.

Even more important is to note that buying it now as we have, we bought it at a time that we could afford it. We got rid of that big deficit which we inherited from the Conservative government.

[Supply, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that when you point a finger at somebody there are three of them pointing back at you. I think that is particularly appropriate for the Conservative Party today because there are three fingers pointing back at them.

Many of the conditions they have talked about today are ones that were in place when they held the reign of power in this country. When Brian Mulroney and his Conservative government were in power we had problems with all of the areas they are talking about. And that is exactly what they are doing. Talk, talk, talk. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

It is this government that in fact is taking action to rectify these problems. We are providing the leadership that is necessary to prepare our Canadian forces for the new millennium, to comply with the requirements of the defence white paper, to provide the kind of support for our forces personnel and their families and to help provide for a quality of life for them that they rightly deserve.

The Conservative defence critic said there had been a 30% reduction over the last four years. That is quite true. Our defence department has been cut 30% in its purchasing power and 23% in actual dollars. It has gone from just over $12 billion down to $9.4 billion. Yes, the defence department and the Canadian forces, together with every other department and every other program of the federal government, has had to contribute to deficit reduction. Why? Because of the big deficit we inherited from Brian Mulroney and the Conservative government.

They virtually put the economy and the fiscal condition of this country into ruin. The first priority of this government was to put the country on a proper fiscal course to be able to provide the kinds of jobs that our economy is now providing. We have lower interest rates. Inflation is under control. We have a balanced budget. Because of what we inherited from that government we had to absorb a lot of cuts in defence as well as in other areas.

The hon. member talked about helicopters. They botched that arrangement as well. They were going out, when the country had a $42 billion deficit, and buying expensive developmental helicopters with all the bells and whistles, things that were relevant to the cold war period which they did not seem to recognize as being over. They were spending a lot of money for equipment; money that we did not have at that time because of the deficit situation they put us into.

We have bought search and rescue helicopters. We will replace the Sea King with a new maritime helicopter. We will do it at a cheaper price with off the shelf equipment which is more appropriate for our needs and cheaper than what they were going to provide.

When it comes to dealing with the issues that face our forces personnel and their families, the pay, the living conditions, the housing conditions and all of the other things, there is nobody who is more committed than I am in seeing that these problems are dealt with.

On behalf of this government, because that is what this government wants to do, I went to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. At the very first meeting I told them “This government wants to deal with these issues”.

I had visited a number of different bases during the summer, within two or three months of being appointed Minister of National Defence, and I heard a number of stories. I told the committee, made up of members of all parties, to go to the different bases and communities and listen to what our forces personnel and their families have to say about the challenges they meet. How are they coping? Are they having difficulties in terms of pay levels or housing? What about the postings which result in them frequently being moved from one part of the country to another? Families face difficulties when they are at home and forces personnel are overseas, sometimes in some rather dangerous conditions. All of these things are important to this government. It is important that we address them.

At the very first meeting of the committee I asked members to address those matters. I said at the time that I needed to have a stronger understanding on the part of all members of parliament, on the part of the government and the Canadian public as to the challenges our forces personnel and their families are facing.

What we heard from the member this morning is of course what I heard previously and what others are now hearing in the standing committee. The reason those hearings are being held is because of the leadership of this government and the desire to get to the bottom of these issues and the desire to take corrective action to make sure that our forces personnel have a quality of life, a standard of living, that is befitting of the great service they provide to this country.

All that we hear today is a regurgitation of what we have heard from the public. What suggestions do those members have? They do not have any suggestions at all. They ridicule every other idea. They even criticized the idea of trying to get sponsorship for various non-public activities, non-core activities of the military. They got it all wrong in the course of doing it. We are not about to put “Drink Coke” on our tanks or on our armoured personnel carriers, or submarine sandwiches on our submarines. They know that is the case.

They know that what we are talking about are things like tattoos or the Snow Birds performances, all of which are not part of the core activities, but are areas where we do require some sponsorship, tastefully done I might add. It will not be done with the kind of advertising logos they are talking about.

This has been going on for several years. There is nothing new about this. It is an appropriate way of getting sponsorship for the things that are not part of the core activities of the Canadian military. Those things that are core, which require public funding, will continue to be handled out of public funds in the traditional way.

He got that all wrong. The other thing he was wrong about was our allies. They all do it. When the United States sends entertainers abroad they get sponsorship. They are all doing the same kind of thing, but it is those additional things that also help, whether it is the Snow Birds or a tattoo, to give the public a better understanding and appreciation of the skills and the talents that our forces personnel have.

As tragic as the events of the Saguenay, the Red River and the ice storm have been, they have also given the Canadian public a better understanding and appreciation of what our forces personnel are all about and the kind of professionalism they bring. In concert with that professionalism, this government is providing leadership to make sure those forces are ready for the next century.

We are bringing about institutional changes. We have agreed with more than 80% of the Somalia commission report. We appointed a new chief of defence staff and overhauled many of the senior positions within the Canadian defence upper echelons.

We have brought into the House the most extensive amendments to the defence act since its creation 50 years ago. They did not bring any amendments to the defence act. We are overhauling the military justice system to make sure we have an appropriate system for the new millennium. We have had reports on our reserves and we are implementing those reports.

In many cases we are not even waiting for the reports. We are taking action now. The 9% increase in pay is an example of something we are doing now. The retirement allowance for the reserve forces is also something we are doing now.

Institutional changes and reforms are being carried out and monitored by a former Speaker of the House, the hon. John Fraser.

The purchase of the helicopters, the submarines and the armoured personnel carriers are all decisions that came out of the white paper. The things they did not do and did not do properly we are carrying out.

We have also improved communications, as I think even the hon. member has admitted, both between the forces and the public and within the forces.

This is just a quick thumbnail sketch of a lot of things that other speakers I hope will get a chance to talk about further, but it clearly shows that when they point their finger there are three pointing back at them for their inadequacies during the time they were in government. This government is showing solid leadership.

[Alberta Forest Fires, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are monitoring this situation very carefully both through Emergency Preparedness Canada and through the land forces western area. General Ross has been in touch with provincial officials. I have placed a call to the minister who is responsible and if we can be of any assistance we will be. We certainly want to be of assistance to the people of Alberta.

[National Defence, April 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, many of the comments the auditor general made are very helpful to the Department of National Defence. I should point out that his comments deal with what has gone on in the past. Some of these purchases relate to things that were done by the previous government prior to our taking office in 1993.

We learn lessons from all these. We have made changes and we will continue to make changes in future to make sure that our military gets the equipment it needs and make sure it is cost effective and is money well spent in defence of this country.

[Bosnia, April 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to be able to join my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in commencing the discussion tonight on the future of the Canadian military involvement in the SFOR or the stabilization force NATO in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

I have had some firsthand experience with the situation in Bosnia. Last fall I visited there and saw for myself the destruction and devastation that followed six years of war. I saw how horrible it is to live in a land strewn with almost a million land mines. I learned how hard the men and women of the Canadian forces are working to help rebuild that country. I slept at Camp Holpina, a camp named after a Canadian solider who was killed by a land mine, and I discussed with our troops how they were doing. I was very proud to be Canadian as I listened to these fine young men and women describe how they were helping the people of Bosnia and Hercegovina rebuild their lives.

Since my visit there I have spoken with many of my counterparts in NATO and I can say that they are like minded when it comes to staying the course in Bosnia. This has always been and should remain a multilateral effort. All of us have seen the benefits of acting together in this way. We know this continues to be as important today as it has been in the past.

Canada's numerous contributions to peace in the former Yugoslavia are evidence that this tradition is still strong.

Canada has played an active role in this region since war broke out in 1991. Canada participated first in the European Community monitoring mission and UNPROFOR between 1992 and 1995 because Canadians could not stand by in silence and witness such destruction. Nor could we be idle in the face of crimes against humanity.

Because we stayed there with our allies in the NATO led implementation force and then as part of SFOR, so much has been and is still being accomplished. SFOR has helped to guarantee that municipal elections, for example, take place peacefully.

SFOR has actively supported the UN international police task force in the restructuring of civil police, significantly enhancing the freedom of movement.

SFOR has worked diligently with the local armed forces to encourage them to increase their demining efforts. As a result some 20,000 mines have been lifted in the last year under SFOR monitoring.

SFOR has also participated in operation harvest, an amnesty program intended to reduce private holdings of illegal arms and ordinances. It was conducted this spring. The Canadian battle group played a vital role in this recovery effort.

Much has been accomplished but much however still needs to done. We are still witnessing pockets of violence in places like Drvar where we have recently seen that the return of displaced persons can provoke violence.

With the expiry in June of SFOR's 18 month mandate the time has come to take stock of our involvement and the continued viability of an international military presence.

There is now enough stability to be able to put more focus on economic recovery, on more demining, on the September 1998 general elections, on police reform, on the safe return of displaced persons and on the building of common institutions. However we along with our allies believe that until such time as the many dimensions of the peace settlement are firmly in place, the secure environment provided by SFOR is the only way these and other reconstruction efforts of the Dayton accord can continue.

We can do this only by maintaining our current level of military commitment. Right now Canada has over 1,200 military personnel in the region. To continue to make a meaningful difference we need to deploy a combat capable contingent of about the same number of personnel. They would contribute to a renewed multinational force by deterring hostilities, stabilizing peace and thereby contributing to a secure environment to be able to carry out the further reforms I have mentioned.

Our allies agree that a post-June SFOR is necessary. We are not doing this alone. We are doing it in a multilateral context. We believe that we must continue to help support the return of refugees in minority areas, help install local governments and help strengthen demining efforts.

Our allies are also of the opinion that any military contribution must have clear objectives, in order to monitor progress.

There should be a precise mandate and a provision for regular review. That is why any Canadian renewal is only possible if there is a transition strategy which vigorously and frequently evaluates progress to ensure that we are constantly focused on our task at hand and so we can assess how best to reach our objectives. Once these objectives have been met we will be able to withdraw, secure in the knowledge that we have helped bring lasting peace to a troubled region.

Some may ask whether we are setting the stage for another Cyprus if we do not impose an end date. The situations are different. In Bosnia-Hercegovina there is a peace plan to which all the parties have agreed. Nevertheless we must assume that the problem there will take some years to resolve—we cannot simply pull out—and that for at least part of that time NATO forces will have to remain.

My visit to Bosnia convinced me of many things. It convinced me that the work we are carrying out there is essential. Our forces are making a difference to people's everyday lives. They are proud to represent Canada as a part of this international response.

It convinced me that Canadian participation in SFOR is a key component in this multilateral NATO operation. It convinced me that much still needs to be done and that Canada must be a part of that effort.

[Canadian Armed Forces, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian troops who appeared before the defence committee yesterday made a very moving presentation. I would commend all members of this House to familiarize themselves with it.

It is a story where they distinguished themselves under fire. They showed discipline, professionalism and a great deal of courage. We can all be proud of them.

Some of them have already received recognition and received a commendation from the United Nations with respect to this matter. I think the issue now is perhaps more recognition of something about which very little is known. I would certainly agree with that and I am proceeding in that manner.