Art Eggleton

[National Defence, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, again that is absolutely not true. We have a national earthquake plan. We have the troops. We were able to move troops during the ice storm. We were able to move troops during the Saguenay flood. We were able to move troops during the Red River flood. When they were needed we were able to move troops to all parts of the country.

We do have regular troops and reserve troops already in British Columbia. If necessary, hopefully this will not happen, but if necessary we will be there to support the national earthquake plan.

[National Defence, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. There is a national earthquake support plan. We are prepared to move troops or do whatever we need to do in terms of emergency support into the area.

We have regular troops at Esquimalt and at Comox. We have regular troops in British Columbia. We have reserve units throughout the province of British Columbia. At a moment's notice we could bring in support from other parts of the country, as we have been able to do in other disasters that have occurred in Canada.

[Disaster Assistance, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we have the disaster financial assistance program. It contributed to the restoration in 1999 as a result of the floods that occurred. Some $12 million of federal money went into that.

I indicated to the delegation yesterday that we would be reviewing the DFAA. I agreed with them wholeheartedly when they said we needed a mitigation strategy. That is something the government is presently looking into.

[National Defence, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we are not silent at all. It would be premature at best to agree to a ban on depleted uranium, given that there is no scientific evidence that links it.

We will certainly make sure that we continue to study this matter. We will continue to work with our allies to get to the bottom of what is causing the problems, the diseases that are being experienced by our forces personnel.

[National Defence, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we are co-operating with NATO in studies that are being done. We have been involved in our own studies and we have certainly received studies from other countries. There has been no link, scientifically proven, between depleted uranium and any of the illnesses that Canadian soldiers have. Nor is there any indication that any rubble would cause disease.

However, to help our forces personnel with peace of mind, we have given them the opportunity to have testing done by independent laboratories, and we intend to continue on that course.

[Lake Saint-Pierre, February 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, since the early 1990s we have cut test firings in the area. We have put up a stop butt rather than firing directly into the lake. We now fire into an embankment so that we are preventing further pollution to the lake.

Meanwhile, a very detailed examination is being done to see what needs to be carried out in terms of cleaning up the pollution that existed prior to that, which was caused by the munitions that were fired into the water. We have changed the practice. We are determined to clean up the lake.

[National Defence, February 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the dedicated men and women who make up our Canadian forces are doing an excellent job. We are making sure that we are investing in the equipment they need to be able to do their job. We have new helicopters on order. We have new helicopters coming this year for search and rescue, even more than we had before. We have a maritime helicopter program that is well under way to replace the Sea King as well. We will provide the tools that our dedicated men and women need to do an effective job.

[National Defence, February 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had Prime Minister Blair complimenting the Canadian forces as peacekeepers and their great skills. Today we have the Canadian Alliance running them down again.

The truth is that we will not sacrifice any of the patrolling that is necessary of our coastline to ensure our sovereignty.

[National Defence, February 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we are consulting on the matter. How can we make a decision when the Americans have not even made a decision? It is the Americans who are proposing this as a security and protection for themselves, but they have not told us exactly what it is or when they will do it. How can we possibly make a decision based on that?

I think the Prime Minister, the foreign affairs minister and I have been quite clear about this. Let the Americans continue to consult with their allies, the Russians and the Chinese, and to concern themselves with the various treaties that exist, such as the ABM treaty, and then we will have something further to talk about in a decision making context.

[National Defence, February 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member would have to ask President Bush and the United States government that kind of question.

The Americans have said that they will consult with all those who are interested, the allies, as well as those who are concerned about global security issues, such as Russia and China, although Russia itself seems to admit that there is a problem with security. Russia is proposing an alternate missile system. It understands, as the Americans do, that there is a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

However, the Prime Minister has stated quite clearly that we have not been asked to take a position. The Americans have not put this in place yet and have not indicated the parameters of it.