National Defence in Hansard

[vonGarvin]

From Yesterday 4 Dec 2006 (NB: Not just military stuff, but also the ass gas comment by the leader of the NDP, for levity)
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):
    Mr. Speaker, Canadians have learned to expect only one thing from ministers of the environment, whether they be current or former, and that is betrayal, because no matter which of them were in power, pollution continued to go up.
    What has been the result of this? More droughts, more floods, more fires, more storms and more ice melting. The problem is getting more and more serious.
    After all these years of inaction, will the Prime Minister finally get something done and do something the former government would not do and that is to cancel the subsidies to big oil and big ass--I mean big gas and start putting--
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker:
    I am afraid the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth's time has expired. We will have a little order please.
    The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):
    Mr. Speaker, I promise to get to the bottom of it. I am really not sure whether I should take what the leader of the NDP said personally.
    It was at the request of the leader of the NDP that the government agreed to put Bill C-30, the clean air act, before a parliamentary committee at second reading. Because we want to make concrete progress, we invite the constructive participation of all opposition parties. I would encourage the leader of the NDP to return to that constructive tone.

-------------------------------------
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister went to Riga to persuade his NATO partners to send more troops to southern Afghanistan. He wanted to ensure that the troops already in the field will be able to help Canada under all circumstances. The Prime Minister failed.
    When can Canada expect to have help from its NATO partners in southern Afghanistan?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said, a number of countries have committed additional troops, particularly the Poles who have committed 1,000 extra troops. These troops will have no caveats. They will be able to be employed anywhere in the country.
[Translation]
Hon. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
    Mr. Speaker, all Canadians know that our NATO partners are not doing their fair share in southern Afghanistan and that Canadian soldiers are paying the price.
    The Prime Minister left the meeting claiming victory but we do not know the number of additional troops committed and which countries will contribute. Basically he is telling our troops that if they are in trouble they must call 9-1-1 to get reinforcements. Our soldiers and Canadians need guarantees.
    How can the Prime Minister be pleased with such a dismal failure?
[English]
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
    Mr. Speaker, at the NATO meeting we learned that the ISAF commander, that is the NATO commander in Afghanistan, will have three battle groups in reserve, two American battle groups and the Polish battle group, and that should be sufficient to deal with any emergencies.
-------------------------------------
Mr. Luc Harvey (Louis-Hébert, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, a contingent of 120 soldiers is leaving the Valcartier military base today and heading for Afghanistan on a nine-month mission under the auspices of NATO and sanctioned by the United Nations.
    I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to these courageous men and women who have not hesitated to leave their friends and family for a mission that will be dangerous at times.
    These soldiers of the Royal 22nd Regiment from CFB Valcartier will join the provincial reconstruction team which, since the beginning of the mission, has been rebuilding roads, schools and community centres to help improve the lives of the Afghan people.
    I have no doubt that our soldiers will make a difference in the lives of the Afghan people. On behalf of my colleagues, I wish to affirm that they have the steadfast support of the Conservative government.

 

[vonGarvin]

From Tuesday, 5 December 2006:

Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):
    Mr. Speaker, this petition has been submitted by individuals from across the country, particularly Quebec, with a concern about Canada's role in Afghanistan. In particular, they are calling upon the Government of Canada to withdraw Canadian soldiers from Afghanistan and the mission that is taking place there. I present this petition to members of the House.

-------------------------------

Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, tomorrow 500 wheelchairs will arrive in Kandahar, Afghanistan. A wheelchair can transform the life of an amputee, providing mobility, opportunity and hope.
    After decades of conflict and war, several hundred thousand Afghanis are amputees. In response, Wheelchair Foundation Canada, led by a constituent of mine, Christiana Flessner, has worked alongside our Canadian military to provide wheelchairs to Afghanis in need.
    Each wheelchair proudly displays the flags of Canada and Afghanistan side by side, symbolizing our friendship and national determination to help them through this difficult time. The wheelchairs will be distributed by our soldiers in Kandahar, giving our troops yet another opportunity to build new and important friendships with Afghanis.
    I would like to honour Ms. Flessner for her dedication to this worthy project. I encourage all Canadians to visit the Wheelchair Foundation website, at wheelchairfoundation.ca, to learn more about this exceptional organization.

-----------------------------------

Mr. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, the Memorial Cross, more often referred to as the Silver Cross, is awarded to mothers and widows of deceased Canadian Forces members who die on active duty.
    Over the past several years, members of the House have led the charge for changes to modernize the Memorial Cross medal.
    Could the Minister of National Defence please advise the House as to the status of the Memorial Cross medal?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):
    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the rules governing the Memorial Cross have been revised to reflect the personal wishes of each individual member of the Canadian Forces.
    As of January 1, 2007, each Canadian Forces member will designate up to three recipients who will be awarded the medal in the event of their death in the service of Canada.
    I would like to personally thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs for his help and that of his department in achieving these significant changes. I am very pleased that Canada's new government has found an innovative way to better serve the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces.

 

[vonGarvin]

I'm a bit back logged.  Here is 6 Dec:

Mr. Rick Norlock (Northumberland—Quinte West, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, the new Leader of the Opposition has recently been talking about a Marshall plan for Afghanistan.
    Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs please tell the House what type of reconstruction plan is in place in Afghanistan?

Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, in fact many have suggested there should be a Marshall plan for Afghanistan.
    I point out that last January, Canada, as a major contributor to the Afghanistan Compact which sets goals for stabilizing Afghanistan, strengthening governance and reducing poverty, which is the equivalent of a Marshall plan, recognizing that long term state building is ultimately the key to sustainable peace and security, pledged approximately $100 million annually to development assistance in Afghanistan to year 2011. This makes it the single largest recipient of Canadian bilateral aid.
    We are making progress. There are 150,000 Afghan women now with access to Canadian microcredit and 5,000 rural development projects. Progress is being made for the people of Afghanistan.
-------------------------
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):   
    Mr. Speaker, so far the vast majority of postings to Afghanistan have been for six months. Now the Vandoos from Quebec have been posted for nine months rather than six.
    This poorly planned mission initiated by the Liberals is placing undue hardships on our military families. Will the minister please tell soldiers and their families whether future deployments will be for six months, for nine months, or will they be longer? Military families need to know. They need to be able to plan. What will it be?
    Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, what we intend to do is try to ensure that soldiers who are in harm's way in the battle group or in the PRT will not go there a second time. To do that we have to adjust sometimes the lengths of the tours, but the tours of the fighting troops will be six months.

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, not only are we sending them for a longer deployment, we also cut their pay if they are injured in battle. This is shameful. The minister promised almost three months ago that he would address this matter. He promised it again in the House a few weeks later.
    Why has this problem not been fixed? When will the minister ensure that every wounded soldier when returned to Canada will not have a pay cut?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, I addressed this earlier and I said our government will stand by our soldiers and make sure that they get all that is due them.
    By the way, nobody is cut by pay. That is a misleading piece of information. We will be addressing the issue of so-called wounded pay very quickly.
-------------
Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP):  
    Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from my constituents in the Nelson-Castlegar area. The petitioners say that the Government of Canada has committed the Canadian Forces to an unbalanced counter-insurgent mission in southern Afghanistan that has no clear objectives, criteria for progress, definition of success or exit strategy. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to begin the withdrawal of the Canadian Forces from the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan.
-----------
Question No. 109--
Ms. Dawn Black:
    With regard to the government’s development and reconstruction spending in Afghanistan since 2001: (a) what have been the government’s priorities for development and reconstruction; (b) what projects, completed or ongoing, have been undertaken; (c) what are the specific locations, by province, within Afghanistan of each completed and ongoing project; (d) how much money has been (i) pledged to each project, (ii) dispersed for each project, (iii) planned for disbursement for each project that is still ongoing; (e) who were the partners of each completed and ongoing project; (f) for those projects with more than one partner, what percentage of the funding, by partner, has been allocated to (i) Canadians or to Canadian organizations, (ii) Afghan individuals or to Afghan organizations, (iii) the government of Afghanistan, (iv) multilateral organizations; (g) with start and end dates, what was the duration of each completed project and what is the expected duration of each ongoing project; (h) what are the results of the completed projects, and what are the interim results of the ongoing projects; (i) which of these projects have been carried out by the Provincial Reconstruction Team; and (j) how much funding has been approved for projects in future years, but have not yet begun, and where will they take place?
    (Return tabled)

  Mr. Tom Lukiwski:   
    Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker:   
    Is that agreed?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.

 

[vonGarvin]

7 December will get two posts.  Here is the first:

Mr. Wayne Marston (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have two petitions to table today.
    The first petition states that the Government of Canada has committed Canadian Forces to an unbalanced counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan. The petitioners support the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces and, therefore, call upon the Government of Canada to begin with the withdrawal of Canadian Forces from the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan. This is very important to the people of Hamilton.
    Mr. Speaker, the second petition is a weighty petition with thousands of signatures. It is regarding war resisters.
    During the period of 1965 to 1973 more than 50,000 draft age Americans made their way to Canada because they refused to conscientiously participate in what they saw as an immoral war. Thirty years later we are facing the same choices in Canada. The petitioners call upon the Canadian government to demonstrate its commitment to international law and treaties to which it is a signatory by making provisions for U.S. war objectors to have sanctuary in this country.
---------------------
Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.
    The first petition is from thousands of Canadians who are asking that Parliament allow the American-Iraq war resisters stay in Canada. The petitioners believe there is a moral choice for Canada, which is to give refuge to those who refuse to be accomplices in a U.S. led war in Iraq. If we were to reject war resisters, they would be returned to the United States, face incarceration, and possibly even the death penalty. Therefore, Canada should not facilitate the persecution of American war objectors by returning them to the United States.
    Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from over 1,000 young people who call on Parliament to allow them to participate overseas as volunteers.
    They point out that over 40 countries worldwide rely on young people to assist them. By going overseas these young people acquire another language to better appreciate Canada's rich cultural diversity. They would also learn different cultures and respect different values. This is a very important experience that young people should have, and Parliament should ensure there is legislation and funding to allow them to participate as volunteers in Canada and overseas.

------------------------------
Mr. Dave Batters (Palliser, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, 15 Wing Moose Jaw is home to NATO flight training in Canada, or NFTC, as well as Canada's world famous Snowbirds. The future of both of these programs is of great significance to our military and to the community of Moose Jaw.
    Could the Minister of National Defence please inform the House about the commitment our new government has to the future of NFTC and the Snowbirds?

Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC):   
    Mr. Speaker, NFTC is vital for the production of our pilots and those of our allies, and that contract will go on to the year 2021. We are also actively marketing in other allied countries to get more pilots involved.
    As for the Snowbirds, the Snowbirds are a national icon and the government is committed to supporting that organization well into the future.

 

[vonGarvin]

Here is the second post for 7 December:
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to ask a couple of questions of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, who has spent 15 minutes outlining a multi-point plan on how Canada should change its focus in Afghanistan, away from what his party got us into in the first place in the aggressive search and kill counter-insurgency mission in Kandahar.
    Next, unbelievably, his party gave the Conservative government enough votes to ram through an extension on a mission with nine months still to go, adding two more years to that mission. Those members did this without a proper evaluation of what was happening with the mission, without an opportunity for us to even begin to consult Canadians, let alone have a fully informed, thorough, responsible debate before being pushed into a vote on very short notice.
    Mr. Speaker, I assume that you will be as liberal in the interpretation of the rules of relevancy as your predecessor in the chair this afternoon. We are here this afternoon to deal with Bill C-37, An Act to amend the law governing financial institutions and to provide for related and consequential matters, but since the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca was given the opportunity to speak for 15 uninterrupted minutes about his views on Afghanistan, I assume it is in order for me to ask him a question on this extremely important topic.
    It took me a minute to realize that we were debating Afghanistan, so I did not hear in full the first couple of points in his five point plan on how to get us out of the Kandahar quagmire and finally address the horror of what is happening to our troops in the current flawed mission.
    I want to ask him about a subject that came up in the foreign affairs committee yesterday of which he will be aware, I am sure. The Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP confirmed and informed the committee that 34,700 Iraqi police had been trained by Canadian RCMP officers over the last couple of years. This raised in the minds of everyone at committee, I think, the question of how many Afghan police, particularly in Kandahar, had been trained over the same period, because of course we are not supposed to be in Iraq although it is a very important thing for there to be training for the Iraqi police.
    Given the fact that our commitment is supposed to be dealing with the insecurity in Kandahar, and given that many people feel that problems with the under-policing, the under-qualified policing and the insufficient numbers of police are at least as much or perhaps more of a threat to the security of the citizens of Kandahar, the question of interest, of course, is how many have been trained by Canada in Kandahar? I have to say that I almost fell off my chair when the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP confirmed there had been 150.
    I want to invite the member to address this question. Where does the issue of training the Afghani police fit into the member's five point plan for getting out of the Kandahar quagmire?

Hon. Keith Martin:   
    Mr. Speaker, the member asked four large questions, really, and I will try to go through them briefly.
    The first is on the Iraqi police. RCMP officers train Iraqi recruits in Jordan. I have had a chance to visit them and I want to say on the record that the RCMP officers are doing an absolutely outstanding job in training the Iraqi police. They are doing a magnificent job. Wherever the RCMP has gone, and I have seen their work in Sierra Leone, their work deserves medals, quite frankly. The work of the RCMP is outstanding.
    Second, on the issue of the 3D approach, we sent our troops to Afghanistan because al-Qaeda was there. It was not an aggressive search and destroy mission, as the hon. member mentioned. It was a balanced mission in a number of ways.
    Yes, our troops engage in combat and we are very proud of the fact that they do an outstanding job within their combat role, but that is one of their roles. Unfortunately, the milk of human kindness does not flow through the veins of some of the people who are trying to kill Afghan civilians and, indeed, our troops. Our troops are trying to protect them, as the member knows, and to provide security. They are doing a great job in that respect.
    However, they are also there, and we sent them there, to engage in something called a provincial reconstruction team, of which our forces are an integral part. They are making a difference on the ground in terms of providing small amounts of money, in being able to give people the basic infrastructure they require on the ground and in building roads, drilling boreholes and a number of other things. Quite frankly, our troops are the only ones who can do that in these areas of great insecurity.
    Third, on the issue of the vote, I am glad the member brought this up. I was utterly disgusted by what the Prime Minister did. He used our troops as a shameless tool to try to divide my caucus. It had nothing to do with the mission in Afghanistan. It was a political decision and a political tool to use our troops shamelessly. Why do I say that? Because the decision to extend the mission into Afghanistan has nothing to do with what the House says. It is an executive decision. In the Prime Minister's speech, he very clearly said, “I am going to extend this mission for a year regardless of what the House says”.
    That is what the Prime Minister said. He should be utterly ashamed of using our troops as a political tool because no decision of the House can ever be more important than when we have to put our troops' lives on the line, when our troops can possibly be killed. As for the fact that the Prime Minister did this, he should be utterly disgusted with himself.
    Fourth, to answer the member's question of what my plan is with respect to Afghanistan, it involves the following points.
    Number one, we have to train the Afghan police. The Germans are responsible for that. The government could have asked our NATO allies to contribute to their training, equipment and pay. They are being paid only $70 a month right now. As a result, they have become as much of a problem on the ground as the Taliban, because they are engaging in thuggish activity, quite frankly just to be able to put food on the table in many cases.
    Number two, the development component, the amount of money that Afghanistan receives on a per capita basis, is among the lowest of any post-reconstruction situation we have seen in the last 30 years.
    Number three, we need a loya jirga to bring in the groups that have been disarticulated from the decision making process and were excluded from the Bonn agreement. They need to come to the table. A loya jirga is a way of doing that.
    Number four, we need to be able to deal with the insurgency coming from Pakistan and other areas. We need a regional summit on the area.
    Last, the poppy crop is going to destroy Afghanistan unless we affect the poppy crop. To destroy the poppy crop would be a huge mistake, because we would be destroying the only source of income people have. One of the solutions is to destroy the poppy crop and pay the farmers or use the poppy crop to produce legal, medically used narcotics and provide a domestic industry for the people of Afghanistan.
Ms. Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP):   
    Mr. Speaker, when the former Liberal government sent troops into the southern part of Afghanistan for an operation called Operation Enduring Freedom, there was no debate in the House. There was no vote. There was no analysis of the cost. There was no reporting back to the House of Commons. There was no discussion whatsoever with the Canadian public.
    There absolutely has to be some accounting for why billions of dollars have been spent in Afghanistan. There was absolutely no debate here in the House of Commons provided by the former government.
    How can the member talk about democracy when there was not even a vote last summer in the House when troops were sent to southern Afghanistan, into Kandahar?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): 
    The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca will know that the clock has run out but I will allow a short moment if he will keep an eye on the Chair.

Hon. Keith Martin: 
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will be very brief.
    I have two things to say. First, the member was not in the House at that time so perhaps she is not aware that ample discussions took place in the defence committee and in other committees, including foreign affairs, and this House did have take note debates on the issue.
    Lastly, the member should know that this is an executive decision on the part of a prime minister, which is why the vote that took place to extend the mission was so reprehensible. The decision had already been made and it was a political tool, not an effective tool to inform the public or allow this House to have effective input on an exceedingly important decision.

 

[vonGarvin]

7 December, 2006:




Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition that has been signed by members of my community of New Westminster, in Burnaby and in Coquitlam.
    The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to pull back from the unbalanced counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan, citing that it has no clear objectives, criteria for progress or definition of success. They say that the New Democratic Party has called for the withdrawal of Canadian Forces from this mission, that they support the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces.
    They call upon the government to begin the orderly withdrawal of Canadian Forces from the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan.

 

[observor 69]

I'm a bit back logged.  Here is 6 Dec:
]

I appreciate you doing this, I enjoy reading the reports.

 

[vonGarvin]

Thank you *blush*

 

[Journeyman]

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): 
I am pleased to present a petition... call upon the Government of Canada to pull back from the unbalanced counter-insurgency mission

And their expertise at both counter-insurgency and the mission's "balance" is based on what exactly?  :

It seems to tie in with the Toronto Public Forum thread

I also would have liked to know from Mr. Wright why he thought asking Canadians - whose entire body of knowledge of the Afghan mission comes directly from press coverage - about whether that same press coverage is fair, balanced, and accurate is a useful question. How exactly would they know if it wasn't fair, balanced, and accurate?

 

[vonGarvin]

a LONG one from Monday 11 December 2006: (first part)

Canadian Forces ​

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC) 
    moved:
    That the House affirm its commitment to Canada's military personnel and call on the government to continue to provide them with the best possible equipment and support to carry out their responsibilities.
    She said: It is with great pride and honour that I rise in my place today to move this motion.
    As the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, which includes CFB Petawawa, “Training Ground of the Warriors”, which is the motto of Base Petawawa, my motion is for all the women and men of the Canadian armed forces and, more particularly, the loved ones whose job it is to keep the home fires burning.
    I take this opportunity in the House of Commons, on behalf of the residents of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, the troops, their families and all Canadians, to thank the Prime Minister for his leadership on behalf of the Government of Canada by demonstrating how much he cares for the soldiers and their families by coming to my riding, to beautiful Cobden, Ontario, and officially turning on the lights for Canada's tallest Christmas tree.
    The organizing committee of the 2006 tallest Christmas tree dedicated this year's 75-foot tree to the women and men in the Canadian armed forces and their families. While the beautiful ceremony was broadcast live to our troops in Canadian Forces Base Kandahar in Afghanistan, the tree is dedicated to all our brave women and men who put themselves at risk helping people in serving around the world.
  I congratulate the committee members and the volunteers for all their hard work and enthusiasm in making this year's tree lighting ceremony such a big success and also the thousands of upper Ottawa Valley residents who came out to show their support for the troops and to make this year's tree lighting ceremony a resounding success. The tree was decorated by hundreds of Renfrew County schoolchildren, many of whom have adopted a soldier in Afghanistan and have written Christmas letters to let them know that, although they may be far from home, they are not forgotten.
    Our community has also created an endowment fund for children who have lost parents in the conflict in Afghanistan.
    At CFB Petawawa, the public is raising funds to erect an eternal flame monument, dedicated to all those who keep the home fires burning. I thank retired military spouse Dianne Collier for her work to “light the flame of hope”.
    I was reminded of the sacrifice of the families of our soldiers recently when I had the privilege to attend a memorial service in honour of a brave soldier who was killed defending the very freedoms that so many in Canada casually take for granted.
    I ask members to please give me a moment of their undivided attention to listen to the following poem written by Jocelyn Girouard, daughter of Chief Warrant Officer Robert Michel Joseph Girouard. Chief Warrant Officer Girouard was recently laid to rest in peace.

    The poem is entitled Dear Daddy:
Dear Daddy,
I did not believe them,
When they told me you were gone.
It did not feel real.
It felt so, so wrong.
God took you away from us,
Without seeming to care.
Your family needs you, Daddy
It does not seem fair.

We are not revengeful,
We are not even cross.
We just feel so sad
Because your presence has been lost
Yes, you will be with us,
Yes, your memories remain.
It just doesn't seem worth it,
Not seeing you march off that plane.

We'll miss you forever,
But you will miss so much.
How can we live without you?
Without your support, your love, your touch?
We need you, Daddy.
We are not ready to go on.
Even though you taught us well,
We are not that brave, not that strong.

You were a soldier, lover, Father, and friend.
We are so proud of everything you do.
We will try to live just like you,
To your memory we will be true.
It's just so hard to believe that you are gone
You can't be gone for good.
You had been our rock for so long,
That our family has been unglued.

Don't feel bad for leaving us.
Think of us with pride.
We'll be OK without you,
We may just have a really hard time.
Think of us, wherever you may be.
We will think of you with love.
We'll remember that you are free,
And you died for all of us.

    I thank Jocelyn for allowing me to share her grief, although I appreciate the fact that I cannot begin to feel what she and her family are currently experiencing. I thank her for her courage.
    My motion today is for Jocelyn and all the other families and loved ones of our serving military personnel. I call on the entire House to reaffirm its commitment to Canada's military personnel and I ask our government to continue to provide our Canadian Forces with the best possible equipment and support so that they can continue to carry out their responsibilities.
    This motion is not just for the Canadian Forces. This motion is for every Canadian, because every Canadian benefits immensely from the essential work that our military does at home and abroad.
    In the unpredictable world we live in, where international terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and countries that are vulnerable or in decay threaten global security, Canada cannot take national defence lightly.
    It is essential that the Canadian Forces receive the support and resources it needs to protect our peaceful society.
    What is the mission? Why are we sending the flower of our youth halfway around the world?
    We are defending Canadian interests at home and abroad by preventing Afghanistan from relapsing into a failed state that provides a safe haven for terrorists and terrorist organizations. We are providing the people of Afghanistan with the hope for a brighter future by establishing the security necessary to promote development. We are helping the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and its people to build a stable, peaceful, self-sustaining democratic country.
    All Canadians can be proud of our accomplishments in Afghanistan, such as ensuring young girls are able to receive an education in safety and security. Our integrated approach of development, diplomacy and defence is helping the Afghan people stabilize their country, establish the rule of law and ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a haven for terrorists.
    Our task is a difficult one. Just yesterday I read a news report that Taliban militants, acting on one of their terrorist threats, murdered two female teachers and three family members. Their so-called crime: trying to give girls an education. This brings to 22 the number of teachers who have been murdered by the Taliban this year alone. These terrorists have no respect for females and little respect for human life.
    Are we as Canadians doing all we can to support our brave men and women in uniform?
    On May 18, 2004, the Ontario Liberal Party introduced a controversial new tax called the Ontario health premium, breaking its campaign promise to not raise taxes. In the case of Canada's military, the federal government directly provides for military health care. Although military members are excluded by law from being members of provincial health care plans, the Ontario Liberals collect almost $30 million in premiums from 40,000 regular and reserve military members in Ontario.
    The Liberals in Ontario tried to justify this blatant tax grab from soldiers by saying that the premiums pay for services to dependents, even though many soldiers are not married or have no dependents. Yet when the Phoenix Centre for Children and Families in Renfrew County requested $400,000 to hire therapists and child care counsellors to treat the high levels of anxiety, depression and even trauma among the children and caregivers of military personnel, Mary Anne Chambers, the Minister of Children and Youth Services in Toronto, wrote back saying that, and I refer to her October 3, 2006 letter to Phoenix Centre executive director Greg Lubimiv, supports and services to families and children are a federal responsibility.
    As the member of Parliament for the riding that includes CFB Petawawa, I was recently contacted by a military couple who, tragically, lost their baby a few weeks after it was born. As both husband and wife are military, they do not have OHIP coverage because the federal government provides for health care directly. As the child died a few weeks after birth, the child would not be covered by OHIP because neither parent has an OHIP number to extend coverage to the child even though both parents are paying thousands of dollars in health care premiums to the provincial government.
    This couple received a bill for thousands of dollars. They are Canadian citizens. They are in uniform in service to their country, but they are being treated like second class citizens by the Province of Ontario.
    In the previous Parliament, I provided other examples of how military personnel are unfairly treated when it comes to the provision of services in the province of Ontario. I say to Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party, “Stop trying to pass the buck”. If he is not going to provide services to families and children of our military personnel, he should give back the money he took from them, the $30 million.
    The Government of Canada, through the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is doing its part. The people of Canada are doing their part. It is time for the Province of Ontario to get onside and do its part.
    I will close my remarks by talking about supporting red Fridays. Close colleagues know that red is not a part of my wardrobe; however, I feel so strongly about supporting our troops that I am prepared to make the compromise every Friday as long as necessary to show my support.
    The red Fridays campaign, which began in the U.S.A. in 2005, has been taking Canada by storm since last February. This campaign to show support for our Canadian military is a popular Friday event in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, with everyone out and about sporting as much red as they can.
    Two military spouses from Petawawa, Karen Boire and Lisa Miller, organized the massive red Friday rally on Parliament Hill last September to start the campaign. Why? It is because it is easy to do, does not cost a penny, unless a person does not own something red to start, like myself, and is so powerful in and of itself.
    Friday seemed an appropriate day to acknowledge our support since many workplaces have a relaxed dress day on Friday.
    During these troubled times worldwide, many Canadians feel helpless. They want to support our troops but are not sure how. Wearing red on Fridays is a very visible, tangible way to acknowledge the sacrifices of not only our troops but also their families. I ask everyone to join this wonderful campaign and let us see Canada turn red this one day from coast to coast.
    I urge all of my colleagues to support the motion. To quote military spouse Sandi Evans, who joined the crowd on Saturday to see the lighting of Canada's tallest Christmas tree in honour of our soldiers and their families, “It's just nice to see everyone coming together to support our troops in Afghanistan”.

 

[vonGarvin]

Second part:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): 
    I did not interrupt the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke while she named another member of the House. She also looked at me straight in the eye when she did it. I want to give her fair warning that if she does it again while I am in the Chair I will interrupt her.
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, less than six weeks ago, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore had a motion before the House which would have gone a long way to support some of the veterans and some of the members currently serving on some issues.
    The member's motion is good and we will support it but I must ask why she did not support the previous motion. Why did the entire Conservative caucus oppose the motion by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore and then, six weeks later, introduce this motion?
    How does she reconcile the spirit of the opposition to that motion and support for this motion?
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: 
    Mr. Speaker, I believe the member opposite is referring to the private member's motion dealing with military pensions. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify this misconception and demystify this false perception.
    When military personnel retire on pension they receive a full pension until age 65. In addition to what they contributed to CPP and their military pension, they receive, prior the time they retire at age 65, a bridging benefit. When they reach age 65, CPP then kicks in. In reality, the money they receive between the actual time of retirement and age 65 is a benefit they have not paid for. The attempt is to have that bridging benefit equal to what they would be receiving upon turning age 65.
    Sometimes people do opt to collect their CPP earlier than age 65, thereby taking a lower amount. What happens is that at age 65, while they would have received a more even amount but because the option was taken at an earlier age, it does appear that they are receiving a lower pension income but that is in lieu of them taking the earlier CPP.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for bringing the motion to the House and for the good work she does on the defence committee and her overwhelming commitment to our men and women in uniform.
    We on the committee have had the opportunity to travel to CFB Edmonton and CFB Petawawa and, hopefully, there will be further travel to visit our troops. Could she be a little more specific about the kind of equipment that is needed, which is referred to in her motion, and also some of the support enhancements that need to be done at home to ensure that the folks left at home are being properly cared for.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: 
    Mr. Speaker, the committee has travelled to CFB Petawawa and CFB Edmonton and the overwhelming response has been that they are appreciative of the equipment they have received so far. They would, of course, like boots that would last a little longer than what they are issued. They would also like to practice with the night vision goggles they have in theatre prior to deployment.
    Here at home we need to, as was mentioned in my speech, do what we can to help families who are keeping the home fires burning. The federal government is filling every request that comes along within its jurisdiction. We have a request, for example, from the Phoenix Centre for Children in Pembroke that services all of Renfrew county but has very limited resources to serve the children in the area which is suffering from a surge in having to help children through this tough time.
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, the member's Motion No. 244 would reaffirm the House's commitment to Canada's military personnel.
    All members of the House and all Canadians support our personnel, whether they are in Canada or deployed elsewhere. However, one of the requirements we have as citizens is that when we send our troops in harm's way, whether we agree or disagree with the policy, we all support the troops. There is absolutely no question about that.
    The Canadian Forces have some of the finest soldiers in the world. We are always supportive and committed to their fine work, whether it is in Afghanistan or elsewhere, for the country and the sacrifices they continue to make. In that context, I commend the hon. member for reading that moving poem. It is indicative of the loss and the feelings that families suffer and the pride they feel for the work the soldiers do in theatre.
    As is the case generally with the government, it makes lots of noise about supporting the troops but when it comes to concrete measures for the current and former military personnel, it prefers to make noises of support rather than take the opportunity to take concrete measures.
    A case in point is the motion by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore to assist members and veterans of the Canadian Forces and their families. The whole of the government caucus, without exception, like trained seals, stood and opposed the motion. I do not know what happened to their concept of free votes at that time nor do I know what happened to their concept of support for the troops or for veterans at that point.
    We are now faced with a new motion to essentially to whitewash the actual sin of opposing that other motion. We do support this motion. All of the opposition parties actually voted for the earlier motion that I talked about.
    I have another example with respect to the government. Back in October the government promised to fix the glitch that has resulted in injured soldiers losing their danger pay. The minister said that it would take but a few weeks and here we are two months later and there is still no resolution. The fact is that the troops are continuing to be denied their danger pay, as they ought not to be. The minister has not been able to explain the position with respect to danger pay. Why is it taking such a long time to deal with this very important issue?
    I will now go to the issue around Afghanistan in general. That is the same government that tricked this whole House into passing a motion to extend that mission with only a six hour debate. Right in the middle of the remarks by the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister issued a threat. He said, first, that whether or not the House passed that motion he would have extended the mission in any event by one more year and, second, that he could actually take us into an election.
    That is how the government works. It works by gimmicks, tricks and threats. As a result of the government's action in rushing that ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-prepared motion to extend the mission, we now have a situation where the NATO countries are not there to share the burden in Kandahar. The government did not ask the NATO partners for up front guarantees before we extended the mission for two more years for additional troops and for the removal of the caveats. The fact is that the government rushed into that extension without any thought or preparation whatsoever.
    The fact is that the Prime Minister went to Afghanistan, wore a flak jacket and started talking in Bushian and Rumsfeldian terms. He pushed us into this two-year extension for which the NATO partners are not coughing up additional resources and there has been a minor or superficial change in the caveats that should have been changed.
    In terms of the equipment, the government has talked a good line. The Conservatives have talked the line of transparency, openness and accountability. The fact is that we are not now spending billions of dollars on equipment that is needed but spending on sole sourcing and fake competitions. There was a fake competition regarding the C-17, the strategic lift. With respect to the tactical lift, all of the requirements were essentially going to go toward one logical conclusion. Whether it is the Chinooks or the Hercules, all of those billions of dollars are being spent without any competition whatsoever.
    We know that inside or outside of government, when there is no competition to obtain equipment or whatever else is needed, we do not get the best deals. The government obviously has forgotten that it had promised to deal with the procurement process, make it more open, make it more accountable, and make it more competitive. It has actually made it less so.
  In terms of the Conservatives' ability to get the equipment quickly, the Martin government actually made announcements to proceed on some of these purchases. The present government actually abandoned and delayed that process by several months. Therefore, our troops, in theatre or not, are not going to get that equipment as early as they ought to have received it. The government has essentially reannounced the joint support announcement and many other announcements with respect to this.
    The overall issue is that the government is rushing into buying equipment without competition, without a full defence capabilities plan. The defence capabilities plan is what actually defines or assesses the needs of the Canadian Forces and then puts the assessment of those needs in full view of the public for discourse and dialogue. The government has not had the courage, the conviction or the tendency to be open to allow the defence capabilities plan to be out in the open. I understand it is languishing somewhere on the cabinet table and it is not being made public at this point.
    The overall issue with the government is that in an unplanned fashion it has been dealing with the procurement process for the Afghanistan mission and the foreign policy questions. Whenever the government has no plans, it resorts to simply picking up policy from the shelves of the United States of America and sometimes goes further ahead of even the U.S. in pursuing U.S.-like policies.
  We have not been able to see any evidence of the government going to the table to NATO and saying the mission in Afghanistan is not working. There is rampant corruption in that government and there is a porous border with Pakistan. In Pakistan there is a Talibanization of northern Pakistan. Suicide bombers are coming into Afghanistan killing our soldiers and killing innocent civilians.
  This government has not dealt with that issue or with the infiltration at the border with Iran into Afghanistan. It has not engaged in tough diplomatic efforts to deal with this. It has not engaged in tough dialogue with NATO to ensure that NATO reviews this mission and determines how we can succeed.
    Right now we are losing soldiers. They are making great sacrifices, but ultimately I do not see a huge amount of success in Afghanistan. We are not in Afghanistan just to educate girls. That is a great thing. There are dozens of other countries where that needs to be done. We are there to deal with terrorism, so that terrorism does not take hold again. We need to win the hearts and minds of Afghanis and Canadians. On both those fronts, this government is losing the war.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): 
    The hon. member for Vancouver South is an experienced parliamentarian. He was present in the House and heard me admonish the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke about naming a member of the House. The next time the member refers to the previous government, he might want to refer to it as the government of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard and not name members of the House. I would like this admonishment to count for all members.
    The hon. member for Papineau.
Mrs. Vivian Barbot (Papineau, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am astonished that it is necessary to make such a motion.
    In my opinion, and no doubt in the opinion of most members of our society, because our soldiers are required to work in such dangerous conditions, it follows that they must have the best possible equipment and the support they need.
    Could it be that, for years, we have so neglected our basic duty to these soldiers, who risk their lives to preserve others' lives, that a motion is needed today in order for the government to provide them with an essential: quality equipment?
    But we are not talking about updating the army's equipment annually to keep step with technological advances, even though I feel that this is necessary in many respects. What we are saying is that it is unacceptable that soldiers should be at the front with outdated or non-operational weapons or equipment.
    However, this motion is warranted, because Canadian soldiers do not have the best weapons or the best equipment to do their jobs. An example of this would be the fact that Canadian soldiers were deployed to Afghanistan not long ago with the wrong type of camouflage. Such negligence puts them at greater risk and compromises their safety.
    In addition, soldiers are increasingly fighting for their survival, especially during the increasingly dangerous missions they are called on to undertake. They need equipment adapted to these new situations and the specific risks they face. For example, the Iltis jeeps proved to be unsuited to the Afghan mission. We must not forget that this cost the lives of at least three soldiers.
    Moreover, Canada lacks the clear foreign and defence policies that are needed before troops are sent on dangerous missions. With such policies, Canada could set specific parameters and more effectively plan for missions for which it would be called on to deploy troops. Preliminary studies would help in accurately determining needs, the type of assistance required from Canada, the number of soldiers we actually have and the appropriate equipment for conditions in the field.
    It goes without saying that the conditions in Kosovo were not the same as they are for the soldiers in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, the lack of forecasting in our foreign policy and our defence policy indicates that the Conservatives are amateurs at this, just like the Liberals were.
    We realize there are budgetary constraints. We are in favour of mechanisms that ensure that we have the best equipment at the best price, namely by having open and honest tenders. In June, the government did not respect this principle in every procurement contract. The Bloc Québécois would like to see the taxpayers' money used wisely, which is why it is recommending the implementation of adequate control mechanisms, including the review in committee of contracts worth more than $100 million. I want to remind hon. members that the former Canadian Alliance members, who now make up the Conservative Party, were in favour of this measure when they were in the opposition.
    It is also important to plan for maximum spinoffs from the military contracts to benefit Canada and Quebec. The government's behaviour on that front has us concerned. It did not think it was a good idea to adopt measures to ensure that a significant portion of the planes would be made in Canada, in Quebec in particular, where 55% of Canada's aerospace industry is found.
    Furthermore, we find that one way to minimize the need for military intervention is to focus on achieving the UN target of investing 0.7% of GDP by 2015 in official development assistance programs. This objective was adopted by the United Nations in 1970 and Canada promised to respect it.
    Nonetheless, since the early 1990s, the official development assistance envelope has not stopped shrinking, going from a little less than 0.5% in 1991-92 to 0.25% in 2000-01. In 2004, Canada ranked 14th out of the 22 countries that make up the OECD Development Assistance Committee, when it was sixth nine years earlier.
    In summary, weapons and materiel are only part of the equation. A good strategy on the ground, based on a proper concept of the international situation, is vital. Adequate development assistance is also a vital prerequisite. It seems clear that what is currently lacking in Afghanistan is not just equipment, but the means for reconstruction and programs likely to improve the living conditions of the average Afghan. That is what will ultimately keep the soldiers alive and make their mission a success.

 

[vonGarvin]

Third Part:
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that the NDP will support the motion before the House today. We support the Canadian military having the best equipment and support possible. At the NDP convention in September, during a plenary meeting on foreign policy, the party supported just such a motion and an even more specific motion, offering support to the men and women of the Canadian armed forces.
    What does support for our troops really mean? Does it mean providing the best possible equipment and fair pay and benefits? Absolutely. In the 2005 budget, which my party renegotiated, NDP members supported an increase in military spending. We realized that the Liberal cuts of the past had hurt soldiers and their families and had undermined Canada's ability to carry out humanitarian and peacekeeping missions.
    Does it mean providing compensation and adequate support once our soldiers retire? Absolutely. That is why the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, the NDP veterans affairs critic, put forward the veterans' first motion. That motion was passed in the House, but we have had no indication from the government whether it will respect the will of the House. His motion supports getting rid of the so-called gold digger clause so second spouses of Canadian Forces members and veterans have access to pension rights after veterans' deaths.
    It supports extending the veterans independence program to all widows of all veterans, regardless of the veteran's time of death or whether the veteran was in receipt of VIP services prior to his or her death. It supports increasing the survivor's pension amount to 66% from the current 50% so military pensions are more in line with the pensions of civil servants. It supports eliminating the unfair reduction of the service income security insurance plan long term disability benefits for medically released members of the Canadian Forces. It also supports eliminating the deduction from annuity for retired and disabled Canadian Forces members. These are excellent proposals supported by a majority vote in the House and the government should move to implement them to really show support for our troops.
    I have asked the minister on several occasions, both here and in committee, about support for soldiers who get a pay cut when they are wounded and return to Canada. Members of the forces who are wounded and return from Afghanistan for medical reasons lose their danger pay. Along with the pain and anguish of having a wounded father or mother, families now have to cope with losing money that they were expecting and had planned on when they did their budgeting.
    The minister promised he would fix it. He told me in October that it would only be a matter of weeks. Now the weeks have come and gone and there is still no resolution to this problem. The government should show its support for the troops by simply fixing this problem. It cannot be that difficult.
    Supporting our troops also means telling our soldiers how long they will be away from their families. There have been claims made that to sustain our commitment in Afghanistan until 2009, we may have to extend rotations from six to nine months. There has been talk of re-rolling airmen and sailors to Afghanistan. In question period I asked the Minister of National Defence to clarify this and to give some assurances to military families about how long their loved ones would be deployed. He gave no definitive answer. He was very vague, in fact.
  Does supporting our troops mean supporting each and every mission, without question, where cabinet decides to send the Canadian Forces? I think not. One of our main roles here as members of Parliament is to hold the executive of government to account. We cannot be mere cheerleaders for the spending and misadventures of the executive branch of government.
    The most significant decision that any government can make is to send our forces into harm's way in war. The most important role of opposition members of Parliament is to ask the tough questions, to prod the government to ensure that when members of the Canadian Forces are put in harm's way, it is done with good reason. There are many instances in our past where this decision was made for all the right reasons, but that cannot stop us from questioning the decisions of prime ministers to go to war.
    Many people may not realize that the military does not get to say no. When the previous Liberal government announced its deployment to Afghanistan, it gave the top generals 45 minutes notice, and they could not say no to the government. Questioning missions and motives is not the role of our soldiers. It is something that we must do as parliamentarians. Supporting our troops should be more than just a slogan. It should be more than just rhetoric. It should be real.
Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to support the motion tabled by my colleague, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. I point out all the fine work that my colleague, the member from Renfrew, has done when it comes to support for the military.
    When it comes to the defence critic for the opposition, the member for Vancouver South, I will not use the word “honourable” this time. The fact that anyone would stand in the House and politicize such a thing, as has happened today, is shameful and disgusting. With a friend like that to the military, it does not need enemies.

  Mr. Charlie Angus: You did not fight for the veterans. You have a lot of nerve.

  Mr. Larry Miller: There is another gentleman behind me who wants to—


    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): 
    The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound has the floor. I need to hear what he has to say.
    The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay on a point of order.
Mr. Charlie Angus: 
    Mr. Speaker, we allowed the other speakers to speak. We made no mention of the fact of how they turned down the veterans charter. For them to now stand up and make a cheap remark like that—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): 
    I thank the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay. That was not a point of order, but a point of debate.
    I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound could finish his remarks and then we will go on to the next speaker.

Mr. Larry Miller: 
    Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of politicization we should not hear on such an issue.
    On a more serious note, I acknowledge and recognize the family of Chief Warrant Officer Robert Michel Joseph Girouard who is here today. My apologies, Mr. Speaker, I realize I am not supposed to say the family is in the House. It was not deliberate.
    Unfortunately, Mr. Girouard was recently killed in battle in Afghanistan. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family. Mr. Girouard was based in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and lived in the city of Owen Sound for five years, while based at the Land Force Training Centre in Meaford.
    The motion today asks that the House affirm its commitment to Canada's military personnel and continue to provide it with the best possible equipment and support to carry out its responsibilities.
    Canada has always been able to turn to its military men and women when we have needed them. Their tasks have been numerous and often dangerous. Whether defending our domestic shores, fighting forest fires in British Columbia, rescuing a floundering ship's crew in the Maritimes, providing flood relief in Manitoba or participating abroad in missions ranging from humanitarian assistance to combat, we have been able to count on the Canadian Forces.
  Although many people expected a declining role for the military in the post-Cold War security environment of the 1990s, the world remained a dangerous and unpredictable place. In the 21st century, Canada faces new security challenges like global terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and failed and fragile states.
    I do not have to remind the House that 24 Canadians died in the September 11 terrorist attacks. Since then, attacks in places like Madrid, Bali, London and Istanbul have reminded us of the terrible toll of international terrorism and the constant threat it presents.
  The Canadian Forces stand ready to defend us at home and abroad.
    More than 3,000 of our armed forces will celebrate the holidays this year deployed on overseas operations, away from their loved ones, their families and their friends. While many of us are busy making holiday plans and decorating our homes, at least 8,000 Canadian Forces members are preparing for, engaging in, or returning from an overseas mission. Here at home, another 10,000 soldiers, sailors and air force personnel are diligently working to defend our territory and its approaches, to assert our sovereignty and to serve our communities. This does not include the many soldiers, sailors and air force personnel working to provide support and assistance to ongoing operations.
    The demands of the Canadian Forces are significant. It is important that they know that our commitment to them and to the vital work that they are doing remains steadfast. The Canadian Forces are defending our national interests, the security of our country, and the economic prosperity of the Canadian people and promoting Canadian values, democracy and freedom.
    We have a clear need for a three ocean navy, a robust army, a revitalized air force and a responsive special forces, an integrated team standing prepared to defend Canada and democracy. The House must continue to provide our Canadian Forces the support they need to carry out these responsibilities.
    Right from the beginning of the government's mandate, we have demonstrated our intention to rebuild and revitalize the Canadian Forces. The Minister of Finance announced an additional $5.3 billion for defence over the next five years in the 2006 budget. We must not stop there.
    We recognize the Canadian Forces have long term requirements that need to be addressed. The government is working to address the serious equipment, personnel, and infrastructure challenges created by many years of neglect. There is no denying that it is going to take time and a significant amount of investment to bring the Canadian Forces back up the level where they once proudly stood. We are looking for the House to support us in this important task.
  The government has moved to ensure that the forces serving in Afghanistan and on other deployments both in Canada and abroad possess the right training and equipment to deal with the challenges of their missions.
    In June of this year we moved forward with a series of equipment purchases and related support services valued at $17.1 billion. The Minister of National Defence announced the planned purchase of four strategic lift aircraft, 17 tactical lift aircraft, six medium to heavy lift helicopters and 2,300 medium size logistic trucks, plus three supply ships.
    We will increase the size of the Canadian Forces. Over time our military will grow by 13,000 regular forces and 10,000 reserves. By doing so, the Canadian Forces will have enough trained people to handle the many tasks imposed on them. To meet these targets, the Canadian Forces are expanding and streamlining our recruitment and training systems. This has brought significant success. In fact, as of this month, we are starting to see applications being processed within one week. Previously this was unattainable.
    Canadians are doing their part by visiting our recruiting centres and signing up to serve. Interest in the Canadian Forces as a career is growing. Last year the recruiting targets were exceeded by 6% and Department of National Defence officials are confident that we will hit its recruiting targets this year.
    We are also dedicated to taking better care of those who have readily and unselfishly pledged to defend and protect us. Canadians who have chosen a military career, those who have answered what our Prime Minister called the highest calling of public service, have more than just demanding jobs. They cope with significant stress. Their jobs are often dangerous. The physical demands can be daunting. They deal with long separations from their homes, their families and their friends. They miss birthdays, special holidays, first words and first steps, and as we all know, some have made the ultimate sacrifice. These burdens are shouldered by not only the members of the military but by their families.
    In April of this year we launched the new veterans charter. This represents the most profound transformation of veterans services and benefits since the second world war. This new charter builds on existing services and benefits to help traditional war service veterans live with dignity and address emerging needs of a new and different type of veteran. It contains provisions for job placement assistance to help military retirees transition into the civilian workforce. Our Canadian Forces have served with duty, honour, loyalty, integrity and courage, and they deserve our support during and after their military service.
    In closing, we must continue to provide them with the proper equipment. We must continue to reinforce their skills with the proper training. This government is showing that support. We will continue to show that support. I ask every member in this House to also show his or her support.
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, as a former defence minister, I had the honour of seeing our brave men and women of the Canadian Forces at work fighting forest fires in British Columbia, cleaning up the devastation from hurricanes in Halifax, doing their job in Bosnia, in Kabul, Most poignantly back in June 2002 I saw them under the most difficult conditions in Kandahar where the temperature was 50° Celsius but one hardly noticed the heat because of all the sand in one's eyes. Over all those experiences no one has acquired a greater admiration than I have for the bravery, the commitment and the dedication of those brave men and women of the Canadian Forces.
    I remember battling the bureaucracy once to fight a stupid rule which we managed to change whereby it was said that a soldier who lost his legs in the service of his or her country would get several hundred thousand dollars in compensation, but only if that person was the rank of colonel or above. No one has to be a genius to figure out that most of those likely to lose their limbs would be of a lower rank. We got that through but we had to fight the bureaucracy to do it.
    That brings me to my point about the government, because words are cheap. I find the government's actions lacking. If the government were true in its commitment to our brave men and women, it would have taken on the bureaucracy but it has failed to do so. I will give three examples.
    First, on the motion by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, the government members all stood up like trained seals and voted against the measure which would have brought real assistance to current and past members of our Canadian Forces in terms of their pensions and disabilities. Why did they do that?
    The second example was already raised by my colleague. Injured soldiers in Afghanistan lose their danger pay. The Minister of National Defence said a couple of months ago that he would fix that quickly. He has not fixed it yet. The months go by. I know defence. I know the bureaucracy will give him 101 reasons why it cannot be done, but he is the minister and the Conservatives are the government. If they had the will to help those injured soldiers, they would order the bureaucracy to do it and it would have been done some time ago.
    We hear nice words from over there. Where is the action? Where is the fight against the bureaucracy to do what is right for our brave men and women in Afghanistan subject to those injuries?
    My third example has to do with the vote in the House of Commons some months ago to extend the mission in Afghanistan. Even though I as a former defence minister have huge support and admiration for our brave men and women, I voted against that motion on the grounds that it was blatantly political and exhibited disrespect not only to parliamentarians but far more important, disrespect to the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces.
    When we are making life and death decisions, there are two ways to go. Either we do it through the cabinet, the defence minister and the Prime Minister who have access to all the information, or we do it though parliamentarians as they do in Holland. There it takes weeks or months. There are hearings and the parliamentarians then have the full amount of information on which to make an informed decision. Those are two legitimate processes.
    What is a totally illegitimate process is the few hours of debate in which parliamentarians were asked to vote with absolutely no information. Parliamentarians were asked to make life and death decisions after a few hours of debate as part of a blatantly political process in which no information was given.
    In my view such a move as the Prime Minister made is not only insulting to parliamentarians in asking them to vote with no information on a critical issue, but it is also insulting to our men and women of the Canadian Forces, that their fate would be decided on the basis of a process where those voting yes or no were not given any information.
    I will support this motion because no one supports our men and women of the Canadian Forces more than I do. However, I would challenge the government to not just deal with words but to deal with actions. I challenge the government to stand up for those who are injured and not allow their danger pay to be taken away; to stand up to the bureaucracy in terms of the levels of pensions and benefits; and when life and death decisions are being, made to do so with a process that is respectful of those whose lives are put in danger.
Mr. Paul Szabo: 
    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if the House gives its consent, maybe we could see the clock as at the end of private members' business so the member will have a full period of time for his speech. He would be the first up next time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): 
    Is that agreed?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.
    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau): The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper. When we next deal with this matter, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre will have the floor.

 

[vonGarvin]

From 12 December 2006:

National Defence ​

 
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is about to spend $4.9 billion for aircraft that the Pentagon no longer wants because they have so many defects.
    Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of National Defence tell us that if Canada wishes to purchase these planes for $188 million, or three times the cost to Americans, who paid between $44 million and $67 million per plane, it is because the Lockheed Martin officials declared that they have fixed the main defects of these planes?
    We are about to pay three times the price for planes that the Americans no longer want.
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, I read the news reports. They are based on information provided by competitors that is basically fallacious. There are no technical problems with the C-130 and we are getting them at the proper price.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): 
    Mr. Speaker, official U.S. reports list the main defects of these planes and the U.S. wishes to terminate its contract.
    Does the Minister of National Defence realize that he is no longer a lobbyist and that his job is not to maximize a company's profit at the expense of taxpayers, but to make the best investment with taxpayers' money?
    That is his work. Above all we must never repeat the error already made when we spent millions of dollars to buy old submarines that never worked properly.
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, the requirements were set by the military. This aircraft meets the requirements. We will not purchase paper aircraft or paper trucks
-----------------

National Defence  ​

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, today Le Devoir reported on a controversy that has been raging in the U.S. It is over Lockheed Martin's C-130J, the plane that the Minister of National Defence seems to be determined to buy.
  The Pentagon's inspector general describes the plane as one that cannot perform search and rescue operations, cannot perform night operations, and has difficulties in cold weather. How can it protect our Canadian Arctic?
    Will the minister please explain to the House how this plane fits into his national defence capabilities plan, the plan he still has not finished?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that this aircraft meets the requirements of the military as a medium lift aircraft and meets all the requirements, including weather.
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, that is not the opinion of the Pentagon. It is likely that these planes are going to turn out to be lemons, just like the Victoria class submarines.
    The minister has been running a closed shop on procurement. The Minister of Industry met with Boeing last spring in Washington, a closed door meeting, about helicopters. There are only two companies left to build support ships and the truck contract was written so that only one supplier could possibly fulfill it.
    Inside the department, it is unclear who is driving this process. Is it the minister, is it Rick Hillier?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should take another acting lesson.
    The requirements set for aircraft, trucks and ships are set by the military and go through a competitive process with the defence department, industry department and public works. We have followed all those processes. Whatever the results are, they are done through a fair, competitive and open process.
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, the requirements identified by DND for the purchase of tactical aircraft were designed to eliminate all aircraft except the C-130J. This is very much like a contract directed to Lockheed Martin masquerading as a competition at the expense of the taxpayers.
    Given that the competition in defence procurement always favours better equipment at a better price, why was this process manipulated to limit the competition to one particular aircraft?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question four times today, but I will try again. The military set the requirements for this aircraft. After a rigorous process, it discovered that the C-130J met the requirements and it was the only aircraft that met the requirements.
Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, during the committee of the whole debate, the minister admitted that he was not aware of the price we were about to pay for the C-130J. The government's purchase price of $3.2 billion suggests a price of $188 million per plane. Italy is paying approximately $80 million for the same product.
    Could the minister tell us why his government plans to pay $100 million more per plane? That is a scandalous $1.7 billion for 17 planes.
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, I have also answered this question previously. The price per aircraft is $85 million U.S. That is what we are paying. All the other costs involve spare parts, training, project management, et cetera.
Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the question in French.
    Just when the Department of National Defence is about to spend $4.9 billion, without a call for tenders, on planes that even the Pentagon no longer wants, we learn that the Lockheed Martin C-130J has neither civil certification nor the upgrading capabilities to meet the needs of our armed forces. Some experts even say this plane is dangerous and inadequate.
    How can the minister justify spending $188 million per plane, when the White House wanted to end its contract for these aircraft, which cost that administration under $80 million each? Why does he want to pass these lemons on to us?
Hon. Gordon O'Connor (Minister of National Defence, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, it might have been better if some of these members coordinated their questions today. They could have asked some other questions in Parliament. The answer is that the military set the requirements and the only aircraft that met the requirements was the C-130J. The military is quite happy with that choice.

Hon. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): 
    Mr. Speaker, let us try again the chief lobbyist, the defence man.
    Canada is about to buy expensive flying lemons. The minority Conservative government chose to buy, without any real competitive process, Lockheed Martin's C-130Js as a favour to its buddies in Washington. Not only are we about to pay more than double the original price, $188 million instead of $80 million per plane, but the technology in the flying jalopy has been ruled obsolete by the U.K. and unsafe by a U.S. military auditor.
    How does the minister justify spending $3.2 billion for 17 underperforming planes? Why such--
The Speaker: 
    The right hon. Prime Minister.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    The Speaker: Order, please. The Prime Minister has been recognized to answer the question and everyone will want to hear the answer.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence just pointed out the errors in the hon. member's question. We see here once again the Liberals opposing new equipment for our military under all circumstances, just as they did for 13 long years in office when they starved the military. However, it is amazing to what extent they are prepared to go to do it, saying that the White House and the Pentagon should pick Canada's planes. We are going to pick our own planes.
--------------------

Foreign Affairs  ​

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Globe and Mail carried a picture of the Prime Minister shaking hands with Afghan warlord Mullah Naqib, a man who admits using his influence to free a leading suspect in the masterminding of the suicide bombing that killed Canadian diplomat Glyn Berry and injured three of our soldiers.
    Can the Prime Minister explain Canada's relationship with Mullah Naqib and why he saw fit to meet with him?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  
    Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I met Mullah Naqib when I visited the Canadian provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar, where he met me as part of a delegation of Canadian and Afghan officials. He was introduced to me as an individual who had been involved in the insurgency and was now working on our side.
    I would point out that if the hon. member reads the rest of the story carefully, she will see that much of the allegations in there are speculative.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP):  
    Mr. Speaker, this situation gets worse. Not only did the Prime Minister stage a photo op with this shadowy warlord, he rolled out the welcome mat for Naqib to visit Canada.
    Is offering hospitality and a handshake to the warlord credited with subverting the police investigation into these tragic Canadian deaths the Prime Minister's concept of justice for the families of diplomat Glyn Berry and three of our soldiers wounded in action? Or, given Mullah Naqib's close association with the Taliban leadership, is this the Prime Minister's notion of dialogue with combatants? Which is it?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): 
    Once again, Mr. Speaker, I was introduced to Mullah Naqib, and in fact at the Glyn Berry room, at the provincial reconstruction team in Kandahar. He was introduced to me as an individual who was assisting Canadian and Afghan government officials.
-------------------

 

[The Bread Guy]

More from 12 Dec 06

Canadian Forces Reservists  ​

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, on Sunday I was proud to participate in a Christmas parade of military vehicles along Whyte Avenue in my riding of Edmonton—Strathcona. The annual event was organized by Canadian Forces Reservists at the 15th Service Battalion Edmonton.

    Led by Santa Claus in a light armoured vehicle, the procession made a stop at Edmonton Youth Emergency Shelter, where Santa and members of the unit distributed Christmas gifts. The parade ended at the Dianne and Irving Kipnes Centre for Veterans, where unit members hosted a reception for veterans and their families.

    Reservists raised money throughout the year and presented cheques worth $3,000 to both the Youth Emergency Shelter and the Kipnes Centre. This marks the battalion's ninth parade to share Christmas spirit and support worthy local charities.

    I am proud of the work our men and women in uniform are doing here at home and overseas. Our soldiers exemplify the highest ideal of public service, and it was an honour to support their efforts this weekend.

*  *  *​

 

[vonGarvin]

Not much from 13 December 2006:

Birthday Congratulations  ​

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, December 19 marks the 90th birthday of a great Canadian whose contributions to the arts, Canadian military history and Canadian diplomacy will long be remembered by future generations.
    Hamilton Southam was the founder and first director general of the National Arts Centre. Built in Canada's centennial year, Mr. Southam was on hand to witness its glittering opening night in 1969.
    Mr. Southam is also a World War II veteran, serving in both the British Canadian Army and the Canadian Army. It was his determination that helped in the creation of a memorial honouring 14 valiant men and women.
    Mr. Southam, as president of the Valiants Foundation, sought to recognize the contribution of our wartime heroes who gave outstanding wartime service to Canada during the last four centuries.
    Unveiled in November of this year, the Valiants Memorial is another example of this remarkable man's contribution to Canadian military history.
    A true renaissance man, we salute Mr. Southam on this happy occasion.

 

[Journeyman]

The downside to posting these transcripts is that it makes me even more mental reading of the discusting political behaviour of our elected representatives. 

The Liberals criticizing actions that are virtually indistinguishable from theirs when in power (actually seeing support and equipment will mean a completely different result from their rule however), and the NDP continuing to yip, chihuahua-like, without needing to bother with reality because they will never be in power.

Kudos to Mr Miller:

Mr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): When it comes to the defence critic for the opposition, the member for Vancouver South, I will not use the word “honourable” this time. The fact that anyone would stand in the House and politicize such a thing, as has happened today, is shameful and disgusting. With a friend like that to the military, it does not need enemies.

Shame they have no equivalent concept of "actions not words," because even the NDP can obviously recognize the truth:

Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster—Coquitlam, NDP):  Many people may not realize that the military does not get to say no. When the previous Liberal government announced its deployment to Afghanistan, it gave the top generals 45 minutes notice, and they could not say no to the government. Questioning missions and motives is not the role of our soldiers. It is something that we must do as parliamentarians. Supporting our troops should be more than just a slogan. It should be more than just rhetoric. It should be real.

Hon. Ujjal Dosanjh (Vancouver South, Lib.): That is the same government that tricked this whole House into passing a motion to extend that mission with only a six hour debate.

Anyone "tricked" after SIX HOURS of what passes for debate in Commons is too stupid to have been allowed to run for election.  :

 

[vonGarvin]

Journeyman
I think that even with our collective IQ degrading due to reading HANSARD, I think it is part of the reason why.  We see, unedited and raw, what our elected officials are saying.  No sound bytes (or is it "bites"?) here.

 

[Edward Campbell]

From 22 Nov 2006:
Mr. Dennis Bevington (Western Arctic, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, the NDP has learned through access to information that a major fuel spill at the Canadian Forces installation at Alert went unreported at the time. The significant incident report which we obtained states that on September 6 of this year a flex expansion joint failed and 21,000 litres of jet fuel were spilled at Alert.
    Why did the government fail to inform northern Canadians? What actions has the minister taken to ensure this never happens again?
...

Where does the NDP find these nitwits?  Mr. Bevington, coming from the North, should know that all the 'northern Canadians' who might, possibly have been intersted in a fuel line break at Alert are already in Alert.  Alert is waaaay far North of the northern most natural Arctic settlement.

Sheesh!

 

[The Bread Guy]

From the chamber of sober second thought, on buying planes, 13 Dec 06

National Defence
Procurement of Airlift Aircraft​

Hon. Jack Austin: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Actually, I wanted to ask it of the Minister of Public Works; he has been sitting there so quietly, not being interfered with by this side, I thought it was his turn. However, as he is not here today, I will address it to the Leader of the Government.

It is really a set of questions that our late colleague Senator Mike Forrestall asked me on October 18, November 22 and November 23 of last year. I always enjoyed Senator Forrestall's questions. He was quite knowledgeable about National Defence issues. He actually kept me up to date, although I was always running behind him to find the answers.

This question relates to the C-130J, which, it is clear from statements of the Minister of National Defence in the other place, is under serious consideration to be procured for the Canadian military. Of course, that aircraft, as Senator Forrestall knew, was being considered by the military when I was in the cabinet, and we had not completed our appraisals on the lamented day on which our government was defeated.

The question I am concerned about, however, is the same one that Senator Forrestall addressed, and that is an open and transparent process of procurement that provides the public with the comfort of knowing the reasons for which the aircraft is purchased and that it is the best plane for the purpose at the best price.

We have reports today that Europe's Airbus Military is proposing to sue the Canadian government over what it views as unfair tendering practices. It believes that it has not been given an open and level playing field in terms of competition with the C-130J, which is a Lockheed Martin aircraft.

Is the government assuring the Canadian public that the process will be and will remain open and competitive? To ensure that this is the case, because I know the minister cannot give a comprehensive answer at this moment, will the minister agree that the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence would have the opportunity to examine Minister O'Connor and officials of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Public Works so that the public can be convinced in the testimony they give that Airbus has indeed had a fair and equitable opportunity to compete for this contract?

Hon. Marjory LeBreton (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, in June, the government announced that it would require authorized, urgent equipment acquisitions by the Canadian Forces for obvious reasons. This morning, I saw the article to which the senator has referred. As he noted, I am not in a position to answer in detail. I will take the question as notice. I am quite certain that the ministers responsible — Minister Fortier as Minister of Public Works and Minister O'Connor as Minister of National Defence — like all ministers, are more than happy to appear before any committee when invited.

(1420)

Senator Austin: I thank the honourable leader for that answer. Three concerns have surfaced in the public domain: First, the American military are not prepared to contract for the C-130J; second, neither the C-130J nor the Airbus alternative has received its certificate of airworthiness; and third is the question of price. It is alleged that the government is proposing to pay exorbitant premiums in order to be the recipients of early delivery. I am not asking the leader to respond to those comments but, rather, I note that those issues will need be to considered.

Senator LeBreton: I thank Senator Austin for those comments. Certainly, I will include that information when the question is referred for a detailed response.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Senate, Delayed Answers to Oral Questions, 14 Dec 06
Link to transcript

Afghanistan—Visits by Parliamentary Delegations—Entertainment for Troops—Delivery and Allocation of Aid
(Response to question raised by Hon. Tommy Banks on November 8, 2006)​

The Government of Afghanistan elaborated its National Development Strategy (ANDS) to guide development efforts and measure progress over the next 5 years. The best and most lasting development progress is achieved when Afghans themselves are leading the way. Canada, through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), supports Afghan designed and led National Programs that bring benefits and basic services to Afghans across the country.

CIDA is implementing a two-track plan of stability in Kandahar, and nation building countrywide. While Canada's military engagement may be limited to the southern part of Afghanistan, Canada's development commitment and engagement supports Afghanistan and its citizens as a whole. Canada allocated $100 million for development in Afghanistan this year. The CIDA contribution to Kandahar is currently estimated to reach $20 million this year, based both on our support to National Programs, which will benefit Kandahar Province this year, and specific initiatives we are launching in Kandahar.

The majority of CIDA's funding support to reconstruction and development is directed towards supporting Afghan National Programs that are led by the Government of Afghanistan and planned and implemented in collaboration with international organizations and NGOs. In a fragile state like Afghanistan, supporting nation-wide programs reduces the potential of political and financial risks, and helps consolidate gains made in other, more secure parts of the country, ensuring that they do not fall into instability. Additionally, the institutional capacity to absorb $100 million in development funding is not currently in place in Kandahar, given the precarious security situation in the province.

The majority of CIDA's funding is channelled through reputable and well-managed partner organizations including the World Bank, UN organizations and internationally recognized NGOs. Each partner organization undertakes rigorous accounting and reporting procedures. Canada does not generally provide direct funding to the Afghan Government. There are two exceptions: 1) a small, 3-year pilot program management office, at a cost of approximately $1 million per year; and 2) an alternative livelihoods pilot project in Kandahar ($1 million, initially), which is implemented through the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development. The institutional capacity of the Government of Afghanistan is continually improving, which will eventually enable them to take on a more substantial role in financial management.