Art Eggleton

[Publishing Industry, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for International Trade, I want to say that both he and the Minister of Canadian Heritage have done a wonderful job in bringing this matter together.

Because of my previous incarnation in this portfolio I know something about this matter. I must say that they have done a wonderful job in dealing with this trade dispute. For the first time there is a recognition of Canadian culture and our right to protect it. Resolving this problem will not have the kind of implications and ramifications for international trade that the opposition seems to think it will.

[National Defence, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what an insult to the fine dedicated men and women of the Canadian forces.

When I was over in Brussels I met with General Short who is the head of the NATO air campaign. He called our people first teamers. Do members know why are they first teamers? It is because they do an excellent job, are well trained and have excellent equipment. They are amongst his first teams.

[National Defence, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have made it quite clear on many occasions that there are no plans by Canada or any other country to send in ground troops prior to a peace agreement being reached. That has clearly been the plan of NATO and that is the plan that we continue to operate under.

Meanwhile, we are sending over 800 troops to pre-position them in Macedonia to be ready when they are able to go into Kosovo as part of a peacekeeping mission.

[National Defence, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, consultations are taking place. This is a proposal. In fact some of the reserve people were involved in putting this proposal together.

It is now up for discussion. No decision is going to be made until everybody has had an opportunity to provide their input on this plan or some other plan. There is no determination yet as to what will be the final resolution. We know that we need to make some changes. We certainly want to make the best possible changes for the armed forces and we want to consult all of the stakeholders.

[National Defence, May 25th, 1999]

I agree, Mr. Speaker, it is a very rare example. It is not something that we want to do. We did not want to do it in this particular case. We only did it because the Government of British Columbia gave us no choice. It would not negotiate.

We offered a lot more than what this property is worth. Having turned that down and having tried to link it to fisheries, nuclear weapons and all of that, we said “No. Enough. We will follow the legal process. We will go through the due process of law in the expropriation of the seabed and we will give fair market value for it. It is a facility that is vital for our national interests and has been operating for some 34 years.

[National Defence, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that the Conservatives and the Reform have in common on this issue: we cannot accuse either one of them of being consistent.

The leader of the Conservative Party is reported in one publication as blaming the Premier of British Columbia and in another publication as blaming this government.

Meanwhile we have the Reform Party being critical today and yet the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, who stood previously, is quoted as saying there is no question the Nanoose Bay facility must be protected against the Clark government's threat to terminate the lease and the hon. member's colleague for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is saying “I think the federal government did the appropriate thing”.

[National Defence, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have made it abundantly clear that there has never been any testing of nuclear weapons and that there would never be testing of nuclear weapons now or ever in Nanoose Bay. That is absolutely illogical and the hon. member knows it.

Second, with respect to nuclear weapons being aboard any of the U.S. vessels that come into the area, it is the policy of the U.S. government not to do that. However, it is also its policy not to identify whether there are nuclear weapons on any particular ship in any particular location in the world. It does that as a deterrent, as a general policy. We have understood that for 34 years. There has never been any problem and there will not be.

[Kosovo, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have made it abundantly clear. No, there are no plans to send ground troops in prior to a peace agreement being reached.

That is the plan of the Canadian government, which was discussed in this parliament, and that is the plan of NATO.

[Kosovo, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there are no plans to do that, as we have said on many different occasions. There are no plans by Canada and there are no plans by NATO.

The military planners of course are always looking at different options to make sure that we are prepared for whatever circumstances they may be asked to survey.

As has been said before, that is a decision that will be made by the Canadian government and it will be made by NATO. If there is any decision to change the mandate from one of a peacekeeping force after agreement parliament will be consulted.

[National Defence, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the seabed, in other words the mud underneath the water there. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about paying full market value, fair market value. We would not pay any less. In fact we offered an awful lot more than that and the government of the province of British Columbia turned it down.

The mayor of Nanaimo and the mayors and the community leaders in and around that area know the economic value of the Nanoose Bay range: $6 million to $8 million and many jobs for their economy. They want to keep it open.