Allan Kerpan

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. It is a good question.

The vision I probably have for this review is that there would be a committee of members who have CFBs in their ridings. That would give all of us, and I have a CFB in my riding, a chance to sit down and make the case or tell the minister or tell the committee of people that this is what makes Moose Jaw wing 15 very good, very important.

I would talk about things like the low cost of operating this service in Saskatchewan, for instance. We would do this in conjunction with expert opinion, people who are in our defence industry at this time. There has to be some give and take so that we can look at what is best for the industry and for the country as a whole and not necessarily what is best for my riding or any particular riding.

Having said all that, I do know, as I mentioned before, that there are going to be some tough choices. If an MP were asked to be part of that committee he or she could go back to his or her riding and indicate the reasons that base x was changed or base y was closed.

I was part of that and it may make sense. We have to change it based on what we talked about.

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, first of all if anyone would take the time to look at our famous blue book they would see that we have not advocated any major cuts to defence from the $12 billion budget it is currently working under.

Having said that, we also believe that sooner or later we have to make infrastructure cuts. I am not opposed to cutting back or to making changes in defence. What I am saying in the whole gist of what I did say was that we have to get the process finished. I agree with the member's side of the House to have this review process but let us not make any changes until we have a look at it.

There may be a situation in which something very close to me is necessary to be cut. I would not like that. My constituents would not like that but that is part of the tough talk and the tough things that have to happen over the next few years.

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have two points. First of all, the base that is apparently in question in Saskatchewan happens to be the base which is in my home riding. Second, in any attempts or meetings that we have had as a Saskatchewan caucus we have invited everyone to be present and to take part in those.

The question that the hon. member raises is a good question and one that I talked about in my presentation. There can be no way at this point that we can go out and make piecemeal cuts or changes to any part of the defence without the full review process. We have to give the review process a chance to work.

I look at base closures as one perfect example. If we close or drastically change base x in province y today and pending the outcome of the review this fall we may say that base x in province y should have been kept. One cannot make a judgment as to what the long-term mission or the long-term goal of our defence should be without giving the process a chance to work.

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, today I would like to join some other members of this House in supporting the motion before us to strike a special joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to consider Canada's defence policy.

It is the conviction of many within our country and among our international neighbours that the last decade of this millennium presents an urgent and opportune moment to re-examine defence policy and national security.

The international, regional and internal factors compelling us as Canadians to review our policy are well articulated by people within and out of the defence industry. I am sure they will be thoroughly addressed by the joint committee we are proposing to strike today.

For my part, the issues of fiscal constraint, international political instability and the safety and adequate resourcing of troops we send abroad in service are priorities.

I wish to contribute to the current debate by emphasising the process of review. I want to encourage the proposed joint committee to consult carefully and widely with Canadians during this review process for two basic reasons.

First, the federal government has a unique and special role in educating Canadians about national defence and security. Defence is totally within the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government. We must discharge our duties in this regard.

This review process is one opportunity to make younger and newer Canadians in particular aware of the role that our armed forces play and of the service they provide for us. I also hope that the joint committee will consider in its deliberations other ways and means for Canadians to be made fully aware of the importance of defence.

Developing educational and training programs will also ensure that we have a secure pool of future personnel for our armed forces service. While a consultative process will no doubt reveal various opinions and philosophies about the role of defence, the open and frank discussion should be of great educational value and should contribute to a national consensus for defence policy, one that would be sufficient to guide us into the next century.

The importance of achieving such a national consensus is the second reason for a broad and careful consultation process among Canadians. The best policy and legislation that governments can bring forward is that which commands lasting public support.

I believe that Canadians not only need to understand but that they want to understand defence policy. I believe that they will support policy that they understand and have had a hand in crafting.

It is with this in mind that I offer some constructive criticism of the timing of this review. It seems to me that the Liberal Party red book makes a number of policy decisions that may prove to be premature. These include increasing the priority of peacekeeping, establishing peacekeeping centres at surplus bases, forcing defence industry conversions, creating a peacekeeping brigade of volunteers and cutting the defence budget by $1.6 billion over four years.

Others have made this point as well. I as well feel that piecemeal change to defence policy before a thorough review is completed is a case of putting the cart before the horse. We cannot be sure of what our requirements will be, for example, in the area of base reorganization before the review process is completed. In other words, I would encourage the government to be as objective and open minded as possible when going through this review process.

The two crucial functions that the joint committee on Canada's defence policy can fulfil by developing a good process of consultation are education and consensus. The government must continue to find ways to accomplish these objectives.

I would also like to present an idea to this House which I have suggested to the minister of defence privately regarding the potential closure of Canadian forces bases. I recommended that the minister strike an ad hoc caucus of members who have CFBs in their ridings to participate fully in the base closure review process.

The benefits of such a process would be as follows. First, the minister may be provided with information from each base and surrounding community that he might not otherwise have had the benefit of receiving. This information, along with expert opinion, would be shared and debated openly in an ad hoc caucus resulting in the best analysis and decisions possible.

Second, it would allow the MP to more ably and effectively represent the views of his or her constituents. Third, it would increase the ownership level of the decision among parliamentarians and, therefore, among Canadians.

It is important for the government to have the respective MPs regardless of the future of any given base as allies rather than adversaries of the decision.

Having been fully informed of all the factors in the decision making process and having had the opportunity to contribute to the discussion on behalf of constituents, an MP would be a great help in communicating, gaining support for, consolidating and monitoring the outcomes of the decision.

In conclusion, a consultative, co-operative approach relating to the whole defence policy or to a subdepartment of it seems to be very much in line with the government's stated agenda for a more open and effective Parliament.

I am sure that we would all admit to some uncertainty about what the next century will bring in terms of internal, regional and international stability. I would argue, however, that the best way to face such an uncertain future is with careful planning. The future will surely come. The question is will we drive into it or will we drift into it?

Canadians will feel most secure with the future if we as leaders involve them, help to educate them, listen to them and together come to the best possible decisions.

[Child Abuse, February 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last week, after the longest criminal trial in Saskatchewan history, two defendants were acquitted of 32 charges related to sexual abuse involving 15 children in the town of Martensville. Another defendant was found guilty on eight charges.

There is a lot of anger right now, but stronger than that anger is the determination our neighbours hold on to, a resolve to do whatever we can to prevent these violent injustices from occurring.

The ugly reality of child abuse in our society demands a response from us as leaders. We must discover and expose the roots of this moral flaw.

Victims' rights must receive a much higher priority in our justice system. Nothing can ever compensate for the pain inflicted on all those concerned, but we can and should always strive to protect our innocent from destructive elements in society. We must challenge the ugly face of such anti-social behaviour.

[National Defence, February 4th, 1994]

A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

I raise this issue to determine the relevance of these open debates. My party and I applaud any steps taken by the government to make Parliament more relevant.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House if the debate had ended with a motion and a vote to curtail cruise missile testing, would the government have bowed to the will of this House?

[National Defence, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and reflects my genuine concern with decision making in the House.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister explain how and if the parliamentary debate held last week on cruise missile testing had any influence on the government's subsequent decision on this matter?

[Let The People Speak, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party's Let the People Speak fax and voice mail is a growing success. We have received approximately 400 faxes since the beginning of January. Between 10 and 40 faxes and voice messages come into our research and communications office daily.

Canadians with a wide variety of concerns fax us every day to ensure their views are heard by members of Parliament.

Each day we ask and will continue to ask the government questions which come directly from citizens across the country.

Reformers hope that these lines will help in a small way to ensure Canadians' views are heard. They serve as a political barometer of Canadians' opinions on a wide variety of subjects.

Right now, our barometer tells us Canadians are concerned with high taxes, government overspending, and the need for parliamentary recall.

Fax us at 947-7777 or call us at 947-8888 to express your views.

[Canadian Forces Bases, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put forward a recommendation that will contribute to a more open and improved process of reviewing and determining the future of Canadian forces bases in Canada.

My proposal calls for the establishment of an ad hoc caucus of MPs representing ridings in which CFBs are located for the purpose of determining the future of these bases, whether they be downsized, restructured or closed.

This caucus could be chaired by the minister and report its findings to the government. This caucus could provide the minister with the information and views from each base and its community that he might not otherwise have the benefit of receiving and would be shared and debated openly, resulting in the best analysis and decisions possible.

It is important for the minister and his government to have MPs, regardless of the future of their bases, as allies rather than adversaries.

In short I believe that involving MPs in this decision-making process will result in the best possible outcome for Canadian forces bases in Canada.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member poses a very good question. It is a valid argument and certainly one we must not overlook, the humanitarian side of things.

The people I talk to, those most directly involved, are telling me there is very little trust on either side. They are telling me that whether we were there as a peacekeeping force or a humanitarian force, it really would make very little difference whether we were there or not as far as what the consequences of the war would actually be.

I have based my thinking on that type of common sense approach, common person approach to it.