T.A. Bud BRADLEY

BRADLEY, T.A. Bud, C.D., D.D.S.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Haldimand--Norfolk (Ontario)
Birth Date
April 30, 1938
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Bradley
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=82a7280e-c033-4d44-9582-d2d19a1d1af9&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
dentist

Parliamentary Career

May 22, 1979 - December 14, 1979
PC
  Haldimand--Norfolk (Ontario)
February 18, 1980 - July 9, 1984
PC
  Haldimand--Norfolk (Ontario)
September 4, 1984 - October 1, 1988
PC
  Haldimand--Norfolk (Ontario)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services (November 1, 1984 - October 14, 1986)
  • Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (October 15, 1986 - November 20, 1988)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 4 of 60)


April 15, 1988

Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):

1. (a) Yes in 1973, 75, 77, 78, 80, 82, 84 and 86. (b) Yes. (i) Each time, (ii) Three Canadian naval vessels have utilized the range during each exercise since 1980. Record of usage prior to 1980 is not readily available but would approximate that reported after 1980. The exact length of time has varied with each exercise and the naval ships involved, but is normally about four hours per ship.

(c) Yes, an average of four times per year.

(d) Yes. (i) Since 1980, the San Clemente range has been utilized by Squadrons of three Canadian naval ships, twice per year.

(ii) Record of usage prior to 1980 is not readily available but would approximate that reported after 1980. The time of the range varies but is normally about four hours per ship.

2. (a) (i) $3,600 (U.S.) per four hours, (ii) $3,600 (U.S.) per four hours.

3. The concept has been researched frequently and rejected due to the high capital costs involved. Further, the time required on the range by west coast would not justify this large expendituree.

4. Canadian naval ships utilizing the San Clemente and Kaho'olawe ranges at every possible opportunity only permit us to achieve minimum Combat Readiness requirements.

5. (a) Early summer 1988. (b) As scheduled by the USN authorities.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Full View Permalink

March 11, 1988

Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):

Mr. Speaker, on June 26 of last year the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) tabled Bill C-76 in the House and announced that the federal Government had withdrawn the Emergency Planning Order of 1981 and was introducing new federal emergencies legislation to replace it.

As events continually show, emergencies do not wait for any timetable; they can happen at any time anywhere in Canada. With the adoption of Bill C-76, Parliament will be moving a step closer to a highly effective emergency planning and response system.

The Auditor General's annual report for the fiscal year ending March 1, 1987, included a special examination of emergency preparedness arrangements. He specifically recommended that consideration be given to providing statutory authority for federal emergency planning, and for the Government to declare a national emergency in peacetime. More explicitly, Mr. Dye said, "Co-ordination and the testing of specific national emergency plans between federal entities and between the federal Government and the provinces should be made the responsibility of a designated federal agency.

Emergency Preparedness Canada, the agency responsible for co-ordinating this response, has never had its role, responsibilities and mandate set out in an Act of Parliament; it has been acting under a series of ad hoc authorities that were not subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

This Bill will go a long way toward meeting the Auditor General's concerns. On behalf of the Minister responsible for emergency preparedness, I wish to thank Members of the legislative committee who reviewed this Bill carefully. It is a tribute to their understanding of the importance for the federal Government to be able to act swiftly and decisively in emergencies that they moved Bill C-76 forward so quickly. I am sure that the other place will see fit to deal with Bill C-76 as expeditiously.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ACT
Full View Permalink

February 23, 1988

Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):

Mr. Speaker, 1 am honoured to respond to my colleague, a person who all of us in the House know has worked extremely hard for Canada and her defence. Mr. Speaker, 1987 has seen dramatic progress in the bilateral negotiations on arms control matters between the United States and the U.S.S.R. Most tangibly, an INF agreement was signed at the Washington Summit in December. This agreement is an historic achievement for NATO and a tribute to the United States and allied steadfastness and cohesion in pursuit of a sound outcome.

Several aspects of the INF Treaty are particularly noteworthy as precedents for political future arms control agreements. First, the INF Treaty provides for asymmetric reductions with the Soviets eliminating more INF missiles than the United States. This is a useful precedent for other arms control agreements where NATO-Warsaw Pact imbalances exist, for example, conventional. Second, it establishes an unprecedented new and rigorous verification regime involving extensive onsite inspection. Third, by eliminating an entire class of U.S. and Soviet nuclear systems, it demonstrates the feasibility of a far more ambitious approach to arms control than was previously believed possible.

Finally, it shows that forced modernization and improvement programs and arms control agreements are not alternatives but constitute complementary elements in NATO's efforts at preserving security at a lower level of forces.

The possibility of an arms control agreement was foreseen in the defence White Paper tabled in the House last June. Effective defences complement arms control as elements of Canadian security policy. While conventional forces cannot entirely replace nuclear weapons, the elimination of NATO INF missiles places a higher premium on conventional defences and so makes the efforts to improve Canada's military contributions to the alliance all the more important.

At the same time, the importance of redressing the current imbalance in conventional weapons in Europe is a top priority for this Government, as well as for NATO as a whole. NATO is expending considerable energy and resources in force modernization and standardization efforts.

Our White Paper attempted to address this problem in part by consolidating our commitments in both land and air within NATO's central region. This will rationalize and make more effective our input in stabilizing the conventional balance.

Adjournment Debate

Equally important, however, are the steps that we, as part of NATO, are taking in redressing the balance. We are currently engaged in exploratory mandate negotiations with representatives of the Warsaw Pact in Vienna. It is our hope that these preliminary talks will bear fruit, and that two new conventional arms control negotiations will commence some time late this year, or possibly early in the new year. These talks would address the conventional problem from two complementary directions. One would negotiate confidence building measures that would add a measure of predictability to military activity in the land mass of Europe.

I might add that these talks would build upon the already successfuly concluded Stockholm Conference which, in 1986, produced an agreement on confidence building and is currently under implementation.

The second negotiation would tackle the more difficult prospect of eliminating disparities in certain categories of conventional forces which are key for launching of surprise attacks and large scale offensive actions. We will try to establish a level of force which would remove the ability of one side to threaten the other, but would retain an ability to meet legitimate defences.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION-ARMS GAP BETWEEN NATO AND WARSAW PACT NATIONS
Full View Permalink

September 29, 1987

Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):

Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed emotions that I rise to speak on this piece of legislation. It concerns me that we may not have an opportunity to vote on this Bill today, but I hope that we do eventually.

There is no question in my mind about the intention of the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson). He put the

September 29, 1987

Adjournment Debate

utmost of thought into this Bill which is to dedicate a special day to a tremendous man, Sir John A. Macdonald.

I do have concerns, I suppose, about whether we should celebrate a Sir John A. Macdonald Day or some sort of a generic holiday that could be named for all the Fathers of Confederation. There is no question that Sir John A. Macdonald was the catalyst of this nation and the greatest statesman I can recall. Then again, 1 would love to see a "DiefenDay" or something like that to commemorate some of our other great leaders. Perhaps we should look at the future of such legislation.

There are many concerns about costs and other aspects of declaring such a holiday, but I see, Sir, that you are waving at me so I will-

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS HOLIDAYS ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Full View Permalink

September 25, 1987

Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):

Mr. Speaker, if a Canadian Government implemented the substance of the motion as proposed by the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), funds earmarked for defence would be diverted to official foreign development assistance. On the surface no one can, if one assumes the world is perfect, argue against such a well-intentioned objective. I reinforce the fact that I honestly feel that the motion is well-intentioned. However, the world is not perfect. It would appear that the motion and most of the foreign and defence policies of the Hon. Member's Party seem to come from the same naive idealistic base.

I would argue that the support accorded by the NDP for such policies conveniently ignores the historical, current, and future realities governing world affairs. They conveniently deny the existence of Canadian defence and economic priorities which have and will continue to be fashioned in a manner that reflects the fact that Canada exists in an interdependent and imperfect world.

In the real world in which we live, Canada need not apologize to anyone on the level of development assistance provided to other countries. However, up to very recently, June 5 to be precise, this was not quite the case for Canada's defence effort.

From a situation where Canada had firmly established itself as a credible actor on the world stage, through collective defence efforts in World War I, World War II, Korea, and NATO and NORAD in the post-war era, and through a multitude of diplomatic initiatives, many through the United Nations, Canada's international reputation became tarnished because of the defence policies of the previous Government. This is the situation which the present Government is correcting.

For over 16 years Canadian defence policy was underfunded. As a result, equipment in the Canadian Armed Forces is inadequate in quantity and quality. Even when the former Government belatedly decided to embark upon a re-equipment program, it made no long-term commitment for funding. How could the defence planners work in this environment when it can take more than 15 years to implement fully the acquisition of major weapons systems? The previous Government had no sense of vision when it came to defence policy.

On June 5, when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) tabled the Government's White Paper, a visionary defence policy was set out. It was based on the realities of the world and Canada's role in it; on the only sound concept for the country, that of collective defence; on the economic abilities of our country; and on the will of all Canadians to defend our democratic way of life.

September 25, 1987

How can the Hon. Member suggest that funds should be diverted from the defence budget? I would assume that he has consulted with his colleague, the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), or indeed his own Leader. When the Hon. Member for Brant announced his Party's position on defence matters last summer, no cuts were proposed. In fact, evidence shows that defence spending would increase under an NDP Government. 1 think this reinforces the NDP's position of consistently being inconsistent.

It was admitted at that time that indeed the previous Liberal Government had underfunded the defence effort and had left defence policy in shambles.

1 should like to say a few words on two other key elements of Canadian security policy-disarmament and development assistance. The position of the Government regarding the relationship between disarmament and development is well established. It was made clear by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) at the UN Conference on this subject which was held in New York last month. Both remain major commitments of the Government. We continue to view both as fundamental policy objectives but as distinct processes related only through security. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs noted in his statement to the General Assembly, "Progress toward development and progress toward disarmament can both contribute to that security, but their relationship is not simple".

The approach to both must be global in scope and involve all countries. Both must be pursued together, recognizing that Governments are unlikely to disarm at the expense of what they consider their security in order to divert funds to development. We must accept that the level of a nation's security is the main criterion against which efforts for disarmament must be measured. Security is the touchstone. The reality is that each nation will judge its own security in its own terms.

In this sense security involves not only a military dimension but a state's economic and social well-being. A nation's security is the main criterion against which efforts for disarmament must be measured, not the level of economic gain. Development in its broadest sense can contribute to security by helping to create a stable international system. This will in turn diminish the importance of military strength as an element in a nation's security. Collaboration at all levels will be the mainstay of this process. It will remain necessary to continue to support and to further, as we are dedicated to do, existing global and regional institutions and agreements which promote disarmament and development.

In respect of the particular proposal made by the Hon. Member, the Government continues to believe that the idea of any prescribed transfers of funds saved through disarmament is unrealistic. Such savings when and where they occur can be used to support broad development objectives in numerous ways, such as debt reduction, stimulation of trade, investment and economic growth. These decisions are primarily for sovereign Governments to make in accordance with their own

Development Assistance

assessments of circumstances and events. Rather than specify particulars, we believe the accent should remain on a practical approach to these issues. It is a question of political will and of giving support to existing development and disarmament institutions and negotiations.

A further difficulty with the motion is more fundamental. Disarmament and development each constitute basic and longstanding government commitments whose importance has been consistently reaffirmed in annual expenditure reviews by Cabinet. The notion, therefore, that Canadian defence expenditures should be reduced for the purpose of transferring funds for development in the Third World ignores the fact that the level of such expenditures is decided in accordance with over-all security considerations.

Furthermore, Canadian development assistance is provided in accordance with well-established socio-economic criteria which, in the Government's view, must remain the principal guide. Even if any potential recipient country were to reduce military spending by 1 per cent, we would not wish to provide development assistance to a country on this basis. The Government would continue to insist that socio-economic determinants for the allocation of development assistance be given priority, if only to ensure that official development assistance is allocated in the most effective way.

In advocating this approach we do so from a position of strength and achievement. We have since 1949 provided $24 billion in official development assistance. Unlike the situation in some other parts of the world, none of this has been used for military assistance. The global ratio of military spending to official development assistance stands at about twenty to one. In Canada, the ratio is four to one, among the lowest in the world.

In disarmament, we continue to participate actively in all multilateral arms control and disarmament forums where our contribution is well established and of long standing. We make our views known at the bilateral level.

We are set on a course of action dedicated to the enhancement of our security and to international security in its most basic sense. This is consistent with both our policy on disarmament and our commitment to development. The motion put by the Hon. Member does not support this purpose.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE SUGGESTED ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIES WITH DECREASED MILITARY BUDGETS
Full View Permalink