Stephen Harper

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The questions and comments are directed to the speaker, not to a questioner or commenter. If there is additional time, I would ask that you allow additional questions and comments to the hon. member for Red Deer.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Generally speaking, military personnel are very concerned just now. They do not believe in the government's ability to make cuts in a proper manner. It is my view that, at present, the government does not care about the problems confronting military personnel.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is not true that all defence cuts were made in Quebec in the past. Cuts were made in Summerside, for example, as well as in Penhold. Several Canadian provinces were affected.

I generally agree with my colleague that while DND spends less in Quebec and in western Canada than elsewhere in Canada, cuts were steeper in that province. Note in this respect the results of the last election. In Ontario and Altantic Canada, where Liberals were elected, you have higher defence spending and lesser cuts. This is a problem, I agree. But it was the Bloc Quebecois that requested a 25 per cent reduction in defence spending. It is hard to carry out a reduction of this magnitude without making any cuts in Quebec.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to speak on the motion concerning the Department of National Defence and the problems of accountability in it. I want to especially thank the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands for having raised this motion today.

I have raised a number of issues regarding things that have transpired in the Department of National Defence; whether they were the problems that came out of the airborne's service in Somalia or events in Bosnia and Croatia, CFB Calgary, problems of command and control, general morale problems. I have raised all of these issues.

To government members who have touched upon this, these questions have not come from opposition research. These questions did not come from the media. In most cases these stories and these concerns came to us from active military people of all ranks who are very concerned about what is occurring in the Department of National Defence.

I want to spend my time mainly on the issue of the infrastructure rationalization and Calgary's role in that. In doing so I do not intend to dispute in any way the need for defence cuts and the need for government spending cuts in general. All parties in the House have recognized that, although the Bloc Quebecois is very open to defence cuts as long as not a penny of it is in Quebec. I do not share that view. I do not share a not in my backyard approach to government spending reductions.

I am concerned in terms of infrastructure about the decision making process behind these cuts and specifically that application in the Calgary case. The base in my constituency, CFB Calgary, is going to be closed along with the base in Chilliwack. The member for Fraser Valley East is going to address that later. The plan is apparently to save infrastructure costs by centralizing and consolidating the forces in Edmonton.

The history of defence consolidation and centralization over the past generation has not been efficiency or cost saving. It has created probably the most top heavy armed forces in the western world.

In looking at the announcement of the closure of CFB Calgary, in the 1994 budget it was announced that eventually the Harvey barracks, one of the two major portions of the base, would be closed. The Lord Strathcona's Horse and most of the 1 Service Battalion were to be moved to CFB Edmonton in

1996-97. The regional medical depot there was to be relocated within the city of Calgary.

Originally, as the member for Calgary Southeast mentioned, the cost for this move was estimated by DND at $23 million. Six months later the official cost estimates had escalated to $44 million and sometime after that they escalated to nearly $70 million.

As little as a few weeks before the budget letters were going out from the Department of Finance assuring local taxpayers in Calgary the cost of the move was only $23 million. External cost estimates, which frankly were much more detailed and credible than those released by the department, placed the cost for this move at about $142 million.

It is true that in the year 2005 leases for some parts of the Harvey barracks will begin to expire but it is also true that portions of this land have very favourable leases running to the year 2050. I have trouble believing a compromise was not possible. It would have compared favourably to moving men and equipment and constructing facilities to house them at CFB Edmonton.

Let us say that we can even for a minute accept the department's own revised figure of $44 million and a projected savings of $6 million annually. Considering the time value of money it would take over 12 years for taxpayers to break even on the cost of this move. Obviously that cannot be justified as a cost saving.

We have to ask what is the real motivation for the move. According to documents we obtained through access to information the primary justification was to compensate Edmonton for the decision to move that city's air squadrons to Winnipeg, which in and of itself is probably worth investigating, when these inconsistencies are examined on a case by case basis. I called for an impartial review in the case of CFB Calgary. If we look at these moves across the country in combination with the obvious leadership deficit in the department, the review is more imperative.

There were 30 such changes announced alone in the 1994 budget. My guess is that if each of these cost saving measures is as expensive as the changes to CFB Calgary, we will have a very serious problem.

In the 1995 budget it was additionally announced that the rest of the base, Currie barracks, the 1st Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the 1 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group headquarters and Signal Squadron, the 1 Field Ambulance, the 1 Military Police Platoon and the 1 Intelligence Platoon will also move from Calgary to Edmonton. Additionally the medical depot, which last year was to be relocated within Calgary, will now also be moving to Edmonton.

In the budget there are no cost estimates available at all, not even the bad ones we had last year. We have since the budget seen media reports that say the base move will cost about $300 million now that the government is closing the entire base. Other reports quote defence officials as saying they have no idea of what the cost will be, that the cost analysis will not even be completed until later this summer.

Again, this lack of financial information must lead to the conclusion that the decision was not based on cost criteria.

One wonders whether this two stage announcement means that the defence minister's cuts have no focus and no strategy, or whether really he has a political strategy rather than a military strategy. We know there is something going on. The minister himself was quoted on March 6 in the Calgary Herald as saying: ``In the long run, we were going to close Calgary anyway. We did not really say that last year because we did not want to upset people any more than we had to''.

This is very distressing in light of the calls my office is now receiving, calls about expensive upgrades to the base facilities over the last year and even calls about ongoing work. More than a week after the base closure was announced these renovations were still proceeding. New siding was put on some of the buildings and the Currie barracks received new water-conserving toilets.

I should mention that the minister said they had already made this decision a year ago. About a year ago I attended the opening of a brand spanking new headquarters building, the Waters building on the Currie barracks at CFB Calgary. Maybe that explains why the announcement was not made last year. It is pretty hard to announce the closure of a base when opening a brand new headquarters building on it.

I have asked for the following minimum information on this decision: How much will it cost to clean up the entire base? How much have similar clean-ups cost in the past? I want realistic projections. I have asked for an accounting of all the renovations and improvements done over the last year. How much, in effect, did we pay for the minister's decision not to release his announcement one year ago?

I have also asked the government for a complete breakdown of the costs to move equipment and personnel from CFB Calgary to Edmonton and for estimates for the subsequent construction that will be needed at CFB Edmonton. I also want to know what other renovations and maintenance costs are likely at CFB Edmonton since saving these kinds of dollars was cited as part of the reason for the move from Calgary.

I also note a number of issues have not even been addressed yet. CFB Calgary remains the marshalling point for emergency operations to the province of B.C. in the event of an earthquake or some other catastrophe. Those kinds of problems have to be addressed.

I would point out in closing that Calgary is not a government town; it is a town of entrepreneurs and business people. Calgary will survive this loss but not without pain and regret, in particular, not without some regret on the loss of a valuable and longstanding military tradition.

Contrary to some mythology, Calgary was not founded by the guns of outlaws, nor was it founded by the guns of private citizens enforcing their own laws. Calgary was founded by a police detachment of the North-West Mounted Police, then a paramilitary force. A year after Calgary was officially incorporated, the Alberta Field Force was formed at CFB Calgary to help provide units in the Riel rebellion. In 1900 the Lord Strathcona's Horse was founded to serve in the South African war. Since then, various regiments have trained in both world wars. Calgary has been one of the most popular sites for garrison posting.

I end by saying that I have invited the minister to come to Calgary not just to meet privately with officials to discuss land but to meet publicly with concerned citizens from all walks of life on the base. He would be able to discuss this decision and to reveal fully to them the costs and the reasons for the decision, both economic and military.

[Petitions, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the third petition is signed by 50 residents, principally of the city of Calgary.

The petitioners call on Parliament to act quickly to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and to adopt all necessary measures to recognize the full equality of same sex relationships in federal law.

I have also received a petition on the same subject matter from 37 residents of the city of Calgary that asks that Parliament not extend spousal benefits to homosexuals living together as a couple in order to prevent further damage to our already overburdened benefit system.

I have 37 signatures from residents of the city of Calgary that ask that Parliament not include the phrase sexual orientation in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or in the human rights code, or in the Canadian Human Rights Act, in order to preserve the equality and personal freedom of all Canadian citizens and in order to safeguard the economy of our country.

This is obviously a very contentious issue in the city of Calgary, given the conflicting nature of the opinions expressed in the last three petitions.

[Petitions, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is signed by 50 residents of the city of Calgary.

The petitioners pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Petitions, March 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have five petitions to present on various subjects. The first petition is signed by 318 residents of the city of Calgary. I understand it is part of a much larger petition involving the signatures of 64,000 Albertans.

It calls for changes to the Young Offenders Act. The petitioners want an act serious enough to deter young people from committing crimes and tough enough to provide real justice. They ask Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada and the Young Offenders Act accordingly.

[Rail Transport, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois pretends to be defending the interests of Quebecers, but is opposed to ending the railway strike, thereby adding to the seriousness of the situation brought about by the failure of the Liberals.

Last week, the Reform Party asked the government to act in order to avoid such a crisis. As usual, it acted too late. A lengthy strike will have only negative economic consequences for all Canadians, including Quebecers.

Saturday, 1,000 people were left standing on VIA Rail platforms in Montreal. Canadian Pacific is losing about a million dollars a day.

The Reform Party supports an end to the strike and if the Bloc is sincere about protecting Quebec interests it should agree to it right now.

[National Defence, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that an internal report has pointed out leadership problems in the Canadian military. To date, however, the Minister of National Defence has promised only cosmetic changes and has put off major decisions with the promise of future inquiries.

Is the minister prepared to address these failings in the leadership and elsewhere in the military or do we have to wait for more videos?

[National Defence, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have obtained a leaked report written by Brigadier-General Jeffries and submitted to land force command headquarters.

According to General Jeffries, the troops believe that, quote: "Political agendas and careerism have replaced leadership in the defence hierarchy and, furthermore, that the loyalty and focus of senior military leaders is directed upwards and not down". This is a very serious evaluation of the state of affairs.

Is the Minister of National Defence aware of this report? How does he plan to deal with the leadership crisis in his department?