Art Eggleton

[National Defence, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to an intensified campaign against terrorism. We will stand with the United States and with our allies in weeding out the perpetrators and destroying their organizations wherever they may be.

It will take some time to do it. It will not be like conventional warfare at all. The kinds of assets and people necessary to do this in the military context are being reviewed and determined at this point in time.

[National Defence, June 13th, 2001]

That is not correct at all, Mr. Speaker. We have made no decision on this matter. Before a decision is made we want to look at all the facts. We want to know exactly what the Americans want to do, what the cost will be and what the parameters will be. Equally important is what will they do to make sure this world is just as secure in terms of arms non-proliferation as it was before. We want to make sure that it is better.

Until those answers are clear, the government will not make a decision. Until those answers are clear, we will not ask parliament to participate in it as well. When that happens we will have full debate here in the House.

[National Defence, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the United States did decide, through legislation in 1999, that it would in fact develop a ballistic missile defence, but it has not said what exactly that will be. It has put several options on the table. It has not determined which option or options it will actually deploy. It has said it would consult very meaningfully with Canada and with all of the different allies, plus Russia and China, and it is in the midst of doing that. We are nowhere near a decision on this matter because the United States is nowhere near a decision on this matter.

I will say one other thing. Global security, whether through the ABM treaty or any replacement thereof, is still just as vital to this country—

[National Defence, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we do. We are going to great lengths, putting in a lot of money and investing a lot of time and effort to help people who go into a deployment situation, one of our operations, and come back ill.

In fact for post-traumatic stress disorder alone we have set up some five clinics across the country. We have medical staff on site in the various camps and in these various missions to help anybody who suffers in such a way.

We want to make sure that we do everything we can to look after the health needs of the Canadian forces personnel. They deserve no less.

[National Defence, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my office did not rewrite the requirements. It was quite clear the navy decided that the kind of helicopter we needed today was quite different from the helicopter needed at that time and that we were not into an anti-submarine warfare kind of scenario as we were during the cold war.

Patrol and surveillance, extending the surveillance capabilities of our frigate ships, was the purpose. That is what they ended up writing the specification for. There was no political interference in their doing that.

[National Defence, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it was part of a dialogue between people in the navy and people in the air force as to what our requirements would be, given our needs now and in future. There was discussion and dialogue about the old cold war types of requirements, which was a different kind of mission altogether.

They went through all of this and at the end of the day the Canadian forces made a recommendation to me. I in turn made it to cabinet. There was no political interference in the matter.

[National Defence, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there was quite clearly some discussion within the military and a desire to clarify different requirements, but this was all done within the military context by people who are expert in this matter.

Ultimately they recommended to me, and I recommended it to cabinet, the statement of requirements that stands today. There was no political interference in the statement of requirements.

[National Defence, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, again cold war mentality. That is not what we require today. The specifications are what the military say we require today.

The comment about the civilian in the water shows that the hon. member has no understanding of what this helicopter is about. It has to do with maritime patrol in blue water on high seas from the back of frigates. It is not the search and rescue helicopter. We have bought another helicopter for the search and rescue function.

[National Defence, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about old cold war requirements back in the seventies or even the sixties. We need a helicopter for the current and future needs of the Canadian forces. That is why the military recommended a change in the specifications. It is entirely a military consideration and recommendation that the government is adopting.

Meanwhile we are putting money into the Sea King to make sure it is safe to fly. Accidents can happen with any age of aircraft. We are cutting down on that possibility, that risk, by investing more money and making sure it is safe to fly.

[The Environment, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we are working on a solution to this matter with the mayor and the townspeople of Shannon. I met with them very recently.

We have invested over $2 million to get to the bottom of this matter so that we can make sure the water, both for the people who are on our base at Valcartier and in the nearby communities, will be safe. We are working toward a solution now.