Art Eggleton

[National Defence, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we are following a proper lawful process with respect to this expropriation. We did not want to go with this process. We used every opportunity to negotiate. We offered them a lot more than what it was worth.

This defence facility should not have been linked to the Pacific salmon treaty in the first place. It should not be linked to other issues. We should deal with it completely on its own merit. This is a vital defence facility.

We have tried every means to settle this matter with British Columbia but it wants to play politics with it and it looks like the Reform Party wants to play politics too.

[National Defence, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, this is a facility that is vital to Canada for defence and security purposes. In fact it is necessary for the testing of equipment that will be used under water for weaponry. If we were not able to do that then we would be putting at risk our Canadian forces personnel.

I have a hard time understanding the position of the Conservative leader, together with the positions of the Bloc Quebecois leader and the Premier of British Columbia. What a combination.

We are operating in the interest of Canada and in the interest of British Columbia in proceeding to keep that base open.

[National Defence, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government wanted to negotiate for two years, since the British Columbia government indicated its concern and said that it would cancel the lease at Nanoose Bay, a vital defence facility. We have been attempting to resolve this matter and thought we were getting close. We were offering a lot more than the property was worth.

However, at the 11th hour the B.C. government threw in this red herring about nuclear vessels coming into the area. There are quite obviously no nuclear weapons being tested in the area and there never will be. This has operated for 34 years—

[National Defence, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not understand what re-roling means. It does not necessarily mean amalgamation. It could mean that a unit that has been an infantry unit could become a unit doing another kind of function.

We have to look at what total functions we need to support the Canadian forces both in the regulars and in the reserves in terms of the operations we have today and in terms of our 1994 white paper on defence policy. Re-roling could mean that they could carry on in a different function in support of the total army concept.

[British Columbia, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have made every effort to bring about a negotiated settlement of this matter. We have been working on this for two years. We have been taking the case to the B.C. government saying, “We need this for national security”. This testing range has been in operation since 1965. It is vital that we continue to use that seabed.

We have not been able to come to a settlement with the B.C. government. We have been more than generous in attempting to come to a resolution. If we cannot get a resolution by the 11th hour and 59th minute, expropriation will then be necessary.

[Newfoundland Act, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am not proposing any constitutional amendments. The member is talking about a very hypothetical situation.

I think Newfoundlanders can be proud of what they contribute to the armed forces of the country. They contribute in great numbers to both the regulars and the reserves. They have a proud tradition and a proud history, both under Newfoundland prior to 1949 and since becoming a part of Confederation. I want to maintain that great pride they have and which we should all have in their contribution.

[Newfoundland Act, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am not proposing any amendments to the Constitution or any amendments to the Newfoundland Act. I am merely looking at a proposal that comes from a number of reservists themselves and people who are looking at reforms to an institution that has not been changed since the second world war.

As I have indicated previously, I will look at all those recommendations and any other recommendations. I am certainly not proposing any reduction in the size of our reserves or the size of our military overall, or anything that would involve anything akin to what the hon. member is talking about in terms of the change in the Newfoundland Act.

[National Defence, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what the hon. member is saying in view of the fact that his party wanted to cut still more money out of the defence budget.

Now he wants us to build a ship that might get used once every five years or so. That is not practical. All our partners in NATO use money in the most efficient and effective way possible and that is what we are doing.

[National Defence, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we do not need a large capacity ship on a regular basis. To spend $1 billion or $2 billion on a ship that might get used once every five years would be a waste of taxpayers' money. The Reform Party of course knows how to waste taxpayers' money.

Let me tell the House that all of our allies will use commercial ships as a means of getting their heavy equipment into different theatres. In fact, during the Falklands war the British used commercial ships to get all its equipment and its troops into the Falklands area.

There is nothing unusual about NATO countries doing this. We are spending the money in the best way for the taxpayer.

[National Defence, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of cutting the reserves. However, there are a lot of other recommendations that deal with modifications, updating, reform for the reserves and re-roling of a number of the units. I consider all of those proposals to be valid for examination and I will examine all of them.