Bill Rompkey

[Defence Policy, February 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate today and I want to talk a little at the beginning about the timeliness of the debate and I do so as the recently elected chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

In that capacity I am looking forward to the review and to hearing from people all across the country. I want to thank the government for bringing forward the review in the way that it has. When we were in opposition we called time after time for the government to do exactly what is being done today.

As the official critic for the opposition at that time, I recall asking the Minister of National Defence if he would refer this matter to the House of Commons standing committee. Now we have a reference and I am very pleased with that.

It seems to me that we need to go about it in this way. We have seen defence cuts over the last several years and we all know that the cold war is over, that there is a peace dividend and that restructuring has to take place.

We also are very much aware of the fiscal and monetary situations. We are aware of the deficit and the need to restrict and cut that deficit and keep it in line. Obviously, defence has played and will continue to play its part in the reduction of the deficit.

We felt quite correctly as an opposition that to drive defence policy from the Department of Finance was not the way to have an armed forces for Canada for the future.

We felt that we really should proceed by examining the aims and objectives of the armed forces. What do we want Canadian armed forces to do for the foreseeable future and for the next century?

That is the way we are proceeding now and it is the right way to proceed. Defence cuts can and should be and have been made but there is a critical mass to be maintained within the armed forces. If we fall below that critical mass we remove our ability to respond to the challenges of the future and to equip the armed forces however that may turn out to be for the task ahead.

To drive defence policy from the Department of Finance we felt and feel now was not the way to proceed. I am very pleased that we are going about this examination, this review, with an open mind and questioning all the underpinning assumptions of national defence for the future.

I am also pleased that the House of Commons, the representatives of the people, is being used as a vehicle to include as many Canadians as possible in this debate. We will want as parliamentarians to hear from Canadians all across the country who have an interest in defence matters and in the security of Canada. I hope they will come forward and I invite them to come forward. Perhaps we can even use the vehicle we are using today of television to include as many Canadians as possible in this review.

We want their ideas. We want them to feel that this is their debate, this is their review, these are their armed forces, the armed forces of their country. I hope that many Canadians will participate.

We will be doing it as well in conjunction with our colleagues on the committee on foreign affairs because obviously there is a very integral relationship between the armed forces and the foreign affairs of Canada. That is a component of the armed forces and we will be looking at that. We will be exploring our membership now in NATO, the development of the CSCE, our partnership in NORAD and the alliances we have formed and may continue to form and explore on both coasts and in other continents.

I am looking forward to this and I want to talk a little about my own experience with the armed forces. It may underscore an aspect of the armed forces that we have not heard about and perhaps do not always consider.

I remember joining the naval reserve when I was at Memorial University in St. John's. I was 19 years old. As a matter of fact, I had been a Canadian for seven years at that time. I was not born a Canadian. I have a great deal of fun sometimes by telling other people that I am a new Canadian. I came to this country when I was 13 years old.

We in Newfoundland, it is important to underscore, were not part of this country until 1949. When I joined the navy reserve I was a new Canadian of seven years. I had rarely been off the island. My friend from Summerside knows that those of us who are born and live on islands live a pristine and surreal existence that is the envy of many other people all over the world. One thing that it does for us is create a bond between us, but it does not introduce us always to other people in other areas.

When I joined the Canadian navy I met for the first time other Canadians. I discovered what they were like. I got to know them. I trained in Halifax, I trained in Esquimalt, British Columbia. I saw both ends of this country and all places in between. That introduced me to Canada.

I make that point because I do not think we should underestimate the role of the armed forces in Canadian citizenship in the broad sense.

As we question what is happening in the world and as we question what is happening in this country and as we look for the kind of Canada we have had, the kind of Canada that we want now and for the future, let us not underestimate the role of national institutions.

As we see many national institutions fading, disappearing and changing it seems to me that the Canadian armed forces are one of those national institutions that is still with us and that still provides a very important role in this country for national citizenship in the broad sense of the word.

It helped me to educate myself. It taught me a few things. I suppose if war were to be declared and were called up, I would be called upon to remember some of those things that I learned over 30 years ago. God help the country if that were the case.

However, it taught me more than just navigation, seamanship, semaphore and that sort of thing. It taught me about people, how one responds to people, how one works with people, how one lives with people and about this country as well.

I do not think we should underestimate the value of the armed forces for education and citizenship in the broadest sense of the words. I am not saying that may be the primary role of the armed forces but I think it is an important role.

We should ask in this review how the armed forces reflect Canada in other ways. How many aboriginals are there in the armed forces, for example? Is it commensurate with the percentage of aboriginals in this country? How do the armed forces reflect the bilingual and bicultural nature of Canada? We do have bilingualism within the armed forces. As a matter fact, we have components of the armed forces that operate in either official language.

I had the privilege last spring, as a matter of fact, of spending some time at Valcartier with the Vandoos before they went to Bosnia. I was impressed once again with the competence, the professionalism and the dedication of that particular fighting unit which is so renowned not only in this country but around the world. I was impressed as well with its ability to respond to new circumstances.

It does not simply have a tradition. When I saw the simulation of events it was to meet in Bosnia going on at Valcartier I realized that particular unit not only had traditions but had competence in anticipating new situations that it would find itself in and was developing an ability to respond.

We should ask ourselves in this review how the armed forces reflect various aspects of Canada in the inclusion of aboriginals, in the inclusion of people of both official languages.

There are other components as well that we should be looking at to see whether our own armed forces effectively reflect the kind of Canada that we have and that we want.

Then we should ask what do we want the armed forces to defend against? Should we be talking about defence or should we be talking about security, the security of Canada, and how we want Canada to be secured? Are our borders secure against the incursions of illegal drug pedlars, for example? Are we secure against foreign overfishing? I have to say that recently, as a matter of fact within the past few days, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been in Brussels trying to convince the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization that we do have a serious crisis in this country.

I have to say as well that the reports this morning were not all that encouraging. The CBC reported that European countries still do not accept, as I heard the news, that there is a crisis and that there has been a dramatic decline in fish stocks, even over the past year.

If we have not been able to adequately defend ourselves and our resources through discussion and through international forums, and I consider myself a moderate, I have to say very clearly that these resources are important enough to us that we should consider taking extreme measures if we have to defend those resources.

We have to see the future of the Canadian navy in that context, not just in the context of search and rescue. That has been alluded to already by my colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands, and quite rightly. I have known SAR Techs over the years and they are among the most competent and effective that we have anywhere in the Canadian forces. We have to make sure that we give them the appropriate tools to do their job.

Particularly for those of us who live on both coasts, search and rescue is an essential and fundamental component that must be protected.

How do we secure our towns and our cities in emergencies across the country? As my colleague has quite rightly said, that has been a historical role of the Canadian Armed Forces and will continue to be for the future. How do we secure this continent of North America in co-operation with our very powerful neighbour to the south? How do we secure air space? How do we secure the seas around North America? How do we secure our towns and cities within North America?

There is a role there for the armed forces, it seems to me. We should be asking questions and comparing some of the things that are going on in the United States. For example, in the United

States there is a national guard. Is there a need or a role for such an organization in Canada? I do not know. These are interesting questions that we can explore as we explore the security of our towns and cities and our coasts and the role of the armed forces in doing that.

Finally, apart from securing the continent and looking at the defence organizations that we have had such as NORAD, do we need a NORAD of the Pacific as well as a NORAD of the Atlantic?

What about the Arctic sea? As the Prime Minister and others keep reminding us, this is a country that runs from sea to sea to sea. I just saw my colleague from Iqaluit here in the Chamber and he and I both understand that quite often traditionally Canadians see the coast as being east and west, but there is a northern coast as well. In my riding I come very close to the Arctic sea, to Baffin Island. I am just south of Baffin Island and I know that northwest passage is important to us as well.

Canada runs from sea to sea to sea and we have to make sure that all of those coasts, all three of those coasts, are secure in the future. That is our mandate.

How do we want to do that? We have to realize also that the world has to be made secure. Canada has a role in that as well.

The world has shrunk and is smaller than it ever was. Even if we wanted to and even if it was not in our best interest, I think we would be called upon to play a role within the UN. There is a growing need now, it seems to me, to look at the international structures we have created for ourselves to see if they are effective in decision making for keeping peace in the world. Once we ask about structures like the UN, NATO, the CSCE and so on we then have to ask: What armed forces do those structures need and how can Canada contribute?

We have been called on over the years to be peacekeepers for the world. We have an international reputation, and quite rightly so. We will have to ask ourselves in this review: What is the level we can sustain in terms of peacekeeping? There has already been another call for more Canadian troops to go to Bosnia as the ceasefire seems to be taking hold and to be effective.

How much can Canada sustain? We have troops in something like 17 different peacekeeping operations all over the world, something like 2,700 Canadians at last count, almost 2,000 of whom are in Bosnia, in the former Yugoslavia alone. Can we maintain 2,700 people in 17 different peacekeeping operations all over the world? It is not just our armed forces but our RCMP is taking part in those operations. Sometimes our customs officers are taking part in those operations. What level can Canada sustain? What role should Canada play?

We will have to examine that. For all those roles how may people do we need in the armed forces? How many soldiers? How many airmen? How many naval personnel? How many naval ratings do we need? Those are the questions we have to ask.

How will they be trained? Do they have to be combat ready? There is a theory proposed by the people to whom I talked at Valcartier last spring, the generals who were training the peacekeepers going to Bosnia, that the most effective peacekeeper is a fully trained combat soldier ready to meet any emergency. Only if we are ready to meet any emergency can we meet the lesser emergencies.

We will have to ask: How do we train and what do we train for? Finally how will we equip the armed forces? What level of armaments will we need? How will we get those armaments? How much will we produce in this country? How much should we buy off the shelf? These are questions we will have to ask.

What will be the impact of that on Canadians now? Obviously we will not take as thorough an assessment of the arms production industry in Canada, but it is relevant to the armed forces and it is relevant to the economy of Canada at this time. Those are questions the committee will have to ask as well.

How much will we build in Canada? We are building now. We are building in Halifax. We are building in Saint John. We have some of the best in Quebec. We have some of the best and most competent shipbuilding operations anywhere in the world. We are building in London, Ontario. General Motors has an important plant for the construction of armoured vehicles.

How much of this are we going to need? How much of this are we going to continue to build as Canadians? How much can we purchase elsewhere? Finally what level of funding will there be for the armed forces?

In his statement the minister has quite rightly pointed out that this is an important part of our study too. In the document he tabled today, the guidance document, paragraph 6 says that the Department of National Defence has been and will continue to be supportive of efforts to improve Canada's overall fiscal situation. Planned outlays have been cut back by more than $14 billion over the period between the fiscal years 1989 and 1997-98.

The cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter program and defence budget cuts called for during and since the recent federal election campaign will lower defence spending by well over 10 per cent in the next four years, from a high of 40 per cent some years ago to perhaps less than 7 per cent in present circumstances. Defence expenditures today account for less than 8 per cent of the federal budget as opposed to about 20 per cent in 1964. The defence estimates have taken a hit. There has

been a reduction in defence estimates. There will be more as we fight the fiscal situation and as we fight the deficit.

I end where I began: We must not forget there is a critical mass to the armed forces and there is a level below which we cannot pare. If we go below that level whatever it turns out to be, we may not have an effective armed forces in the country to do the kinds of things we want them to do. That is the kind of question we will be asking in this review.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I do not think I was the one who brought up NAFTA. I think it was the hon. member for Saint John.

Nevertheless it seems to me that there are a number of ways in which that information can be shared. We do have defence agreements with the U.S. We have defence production agreements and we have a number of mechanisms whereby information can be shared. I think it is entirely possible within the various co-operation agreements that we have and within the various alliances that we have to ask and to get the United States to share the kind of information that the hon. member is talking about.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure I caught the whole question. I apologize but I wonder if the hon. member would simply repeat the question please.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Saint John on her maiden speech. It was a very thoughtful speech and indeed she listed some of the arguments that I want to make myself.

I will be brief because we have had a long debate today. Again, I want to congratulate the government on having this debate before the decision was taken. That leads me to the point brought up by the member for Burnaby-Kingsway who said we should take our decision now, a negative decision on cruise missile testing and then have a defence review.

It seems to me that the proper way to proceed is in fact the opposite to within the context of a defence review to examine cruise missile testing and in fact all other agreements and all other defence arrangements that Canada has.

We should be very clear that this is not a debate about a nuclear weapon as has been pointed out earlier. This is a weapon system and it can have a nuclear warhead or it can have a conventional warhead. Therefore, the debate is not about nuclear weapons. In fact, nuclear weapons are not allowed on Canadian soil. That was an initiative that a Liberal government took and it is the law of the land at the present time.

This is not a debate-we have to be very clear about that-about nuclear weapons, but it is about the testing of a weapons system that belongs to a partner of ours in North America, to a colleague of ours in NATO and to a partner of ours in NORAD. I think we should think very carefully about how we treat that particular partner and indeed about how we treat this particular weapon.

It may be that we do not want to continue and there is no need to continue all of the arrangements that we have with the Americans at the present time. However, I repeat that the proper examination of that is within an overall defence review and the Liberal Party did commit to a defence review when it was in opposition and it is committed to a defence review now. I submit that that is the proper context in which to determine the future of cruise missile testing. We may not want to continue to test cruise missiles forever.

However, I think we should be very careful about the discontinuing of any weapon at the present time. The fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the cold war has not brought stability. Rather, I think, we can argue that there is more instability in the world now than ever before. Our forces took part in the gulf war some time ago. It has already been pointed out that a cruise missile was very effective in bringing to an end that war.

There will be more gulf wars and Canada will be involved in them with our partners. NATO was an important part. It was not there with the NATO flag but it was an important part of the gulf war. The unity, training and coherence of NATO was a very important factor in bringing that war to an end. We have to think very carefully about dismantling the weapons and the alliances that we have in view of the instability that is in the world at the present time.

What is the success story? The success story is that our way of life, beliefs and philosophy have gained pre-eminence because of the strength that we had and the strength we were able to demonstrate, but not to exercise. NATO never went to war. NATO is the most successful military alliance in history and it is arguably the best equipped and best trained military alliance in history and yet it never went to war. It was successful simply because it was there and everybody knew it was there and everybody knew what capability it had.

The success we have had is because we have been able to demonstrate strength. We have to think very carefully before we start to weaken our capability. I think it is important to negotiate from strength and not from weakness.

Part of that strength clearly has to be the strength of the United States itself. The United States is not universally popular and there are many people who resent the growing role of the U.S. as the world cop. I would prefer to see the UN become that cop, but it is clearly true that in all of our alliances we in Canada and other allies on both sides of the Atlantic depend heavily on the might of the American military machine for our alliances. We have to think very carefully about reducing the strength of that machine and those alliances in the present circumstances.

I do not think it is necessary to draw this debate out for a long time. I simply want to repeat in closing that the proper examination of cruise missile testing is within the overall review of defence policy. Clearly I think that is the way to proceed and my counsel to the government would be to maintain our agreement. It is a signed agreement and whether it is with the United States or any other partner I think we have to be very careful about our own credibility if we simply break agreements unilaterally.

The proper examination of whether to go ahead with cruise missile testing or not in the future is within the defence review and not at the present time.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House the first report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association concerning the North Atlantic Assembly spring session which was held in Berlin May 20 to 24, 1993, and the second report concerning the North Atlantic Assembly annual session which was held in Copenhagen, Denmark, October 7 to 12, 1993.

[The Late G. Campbell Eaton, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a distinguished Newfoundlander, G. Campbell Eaton. Mr. Eaton passed away yesterday in St. John's.

He served with distinction in the 166th Newfoundland Field Regiment Royal Artillery during the Second World War and received the Military Cross for conspicuous bravery, coolness and outstanding conduct under fire during action in Italy. After the war, Mr. Eaton served as commanding officer of the regiment and later was honorary colonel of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.

He was a prominent and respected business executive and an energetic and devoted leader in community life in our province, particularly in the fields of health, housing and education. He was made Doctor of Laws by Memorial University, and as well in recognition of his outstanding and distinguished service he was installed as an officer of the Order of Canada in 1978.

I would describe Cam Eaton as a gentleman in every sense of the word. He was a man who stood above the crowd with a quiet dignity formed by wisdom and sound judgment. He was a rare man and therefore leaves a void not easily filled.

I offer his widow, Betty, and his family deepest sympathy.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would absolutely agree with that. That is part of the point I have been trying to make. The weakness is not on the ground but with the structures under which that personnel operates. We have to strengthen the mandate there. We also have to provide adequate personnel to carry out the mandate.

At the present time it seems to me that we do not have enough resources in the former Yugoslavia to do the job. In addition to what is there now perhaps we need more forces to carry out the mandate, but obviously the mandate has to be strengthened.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have already indicated my concurrence with the point he is putting forward about the UN. The problems we have in Bosnia are not with the troops or with the military personnel but are with the political will and the political structures that give form and structure to the way in which they are operating. That is where reform is needed. If we do not reform those institutions we are going to be worse off in future than we have been in the past.

The UN is really the only institution that can adequately deal with this situation. Perhaps CSCE or NATO as supplementary agencies can have a role but unless the UN is strong and has the political will and the structures, I do not think we will be able to deal with these things adequately in future.

On the reserves I support the total force concept. There are reserves overseas now in peacekeeping operations. We depend on them heavily. We will I believe and I hope depend on them even more heavily in future. It is clearly the way to go. I was in the forces myself in the reserves in an institution that no longer exists, the University Naval Training Division. It was an excellent way for young people to get a start in life, to earn some money, to get an education and for me to become a Canadian. It is something that we have to strengthen.

We have seen some creative thinking already on the future use of bases, for example, St. Margarets in New Brunswick where private enterprise has bought a whole base and is now using it as a housing unit. That is a very creative use of the former armed forces base. Also there are educational initiatives taking place particularly in the province of Nova Scotia which use existing facilities for the training of young people. There are creative ways that we can make use of armed forces bases as well. I totally support what he says.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, may I first of all congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair and the Speaker on his election. Indeed, I congratulate all those who occupy the Chair.

May I say at the beginning something about this particular debate. I have been here for 21 years and I believe that the debate today is the best debate I have heard in the Chamber. It is frank, well informed, useful, constructive and in advance of a decision. I congratulate the government for bringing forward the debate and I congratulate all members for the way they have participated in the debate.

I would like to make the following points on this issue. First, it seems to me that peacekeeping is one of the primary matters that has defined us as Canadians. We look for definitions of ourselves and it seems to me that peacekeeping is one of those things that has defined us. It has told the world the kind of people we are, the kind of things we believe in and the kind of role we want to play as citizens in the world.

I do not want to go over again the ground that has already been covered very adequately about Canada's role in peacekeeping over the years. We have acquitted ourselves well and suffice to say we do now have a reputation in the world, a reputation that is honourable, that is justified, that is very real and that I believe should be maintained.

We now have peacekeeping operations all over the world. It is something that Canada has done well, continues to do and something I believe Canada should commit itself to in the future as one of the priorities of defence policy. There are many aims and objectives of defence policy but among those out of country objectives I believe that peacekeeping should be at the top of the list.

However, we need to understand we can only do so much. Our resources are limited and we will have to justify according to set criteria our involvement in peacekeeping operations in the future. I believe it is understood that we are already stretched to the limit and that we cannot take up any more.

The other point I want to make about peacekeeping is that it provides an opportunity for the Canadian forces. It may be one of those few out of country opportunities provided for the Canadian forces at the present time. It gives our soldiers, airmen and naval personnel an opportunity to practise the kind of training that they have had and the kind of professionalism that they exemplify so well.

These peacekeeping opportunities provide us with an opportunity to show what we are trained for and to show leadership. We now have about 2,000 of our personnel in the former Yugoslavia. Our mission in Bosnia is not traditional peacekeeping. We are there not only to keep warring factions apart but to deliver humanitarian aid.

Many people have been upset by the situations that Canadians have found themselves in recently, particularly where they have been harassed and even abused in the course of their duties. I was privileged to spend several days at Valcartier last spring with the Vandoos before they went to the former Yugoslavia. I can tell the House that our troops receive up to date, thorough and excellent training before they go abroad. They are very well equipped to make decisions. They found themselves in some very difficult situations and they have handled themselves with honour and distinction.

We are doing an important job in Bosnia. It is true there is still a great deal of horror being experienced in that country but people are alive now because we are there. People are fed because we are in Bosnia. There is no holocaust, there is no genocide because we are in Bosnia. The point I am making is that things would be a great deal worse if we were not there.

My position is that we should stay in Bosnia as long as we are providing a useful role. I believe we are at the present time. I would counsel against unilateral withdrawal. We are there as members of the United Nations. We must not forget we are there as members of NATO. NATO has a role in Bosnia. In addition to our role in UN peacekeeping operations over the years we have been a valued and esteemed member of NATO. It is important to

send the right signals about the strength of the trans-Atlantic alliance as this stage of the game.

There were arguments made this morning that perhaps a threat of withdrawal would be useful. It could also be argued that it would be counterproductive because it would send a signal to those factions in Bosnia that they did not have to negotiate, that they did not have to be serious at the negotiating table and that they could carry on as they have been doing. It seems to me that the threat of withdrawal sends the wrong signal.

I believe Canada should stay with the mission at the present time and that we should withdraw only in consultation with our colleagues, the other members of the UN. What must be rectified is the gap that exists between UN decision making and implementation of those decisions. That gap has been identified not only by our own personnel such as General MacKenzie, but most recently by the Belgian general as well.

We should put our efforts into rectifying the weaknesses that exist in UN decision-making and implementation. We have to strengthen the UN for Bosnia and all the other Bosnias that are going to happen. It is true-perhaps we have not made this point clearly enough today-that the cold war is over. However, many would argue there is not more but less stability as a result of that. There is still instability in the world. There is still a threat to world peace. As long as that exists the chances are that we are going to have to contribute more in time and effort to situations like Bosnia.

It is important we strengthen institutions such as the UN in its decision making and implementation process. We should also ensure that the burden is shared fairly. We have every right to expect that. Canada has given perhaps more than its share, certainly more than other countries. We should expect the burden to be shared fairly.

I would like to conclude by saying my last words to Canadian soldiers and to quote the Canadian soldier who appeared in one of the most recent television clips having come back after his convoy was harassed and shot at by those he was really put there to help. He said: "This is what I have been trained for. This is what I have been trained to do. It is an opportunity for me. This is the job we are here to do and it is the job we want to do". I think he speaks for Canadian personnel in their determination to do the best job they can. It is up to us as parliamentarians to give them the proper back-up to do the job.