House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 47% of the vote.
Canada's military mission in Afghanistan November 15th, 2005
Madam Chair, with all due respect, the member says that he was in Kandahar. If he thinks our troops are fully equipped, why would the minister want to do sole sourcing? We are obviously short of equipment. We understand that.
We are not trying to deny that our troops need the equipment. We are suggesting that they should have had it a long time ago. The government let the cupboards get bare and now it is time to try and pay the piper.
Canada's military mission in Afghanistan November 15th, 2005
Armour protection for APCs.
Canada's military mission in Afghanistan November 15th, 2005
Madam Chair, my understanding is there is something like 16 requirements for additional equipment in that theatre that have not been met. I do not think it is up to me to tell the government what they are. The military knows what they are.
Canada's military mission in Afghanistan November 15th, 2005
Madam Chair, the member's question certainly lays open this whole issue.
The member's party has talked about this huge infusion of money, but in fact it is not a huge infusion of money immediately. I do not disagree that all of the money could be used in year one, but we are so far behind to start with, and that is the issue we have about the sole sourcing. The government has let the cupboard get bare and it does not have many options to replenish the inventory. We are committing our people to an operation where they need the tools to do the job. There has been poor planning for the last 10 years and the government has let the military decline. Now it is talking about a huge infusion of money. The member is right, the military cannot use it overnight. The past has now caught up to us.
Canada's military mission in Afghanistan November 15th, 2005
Madam Chair, we have heard that comment on sole sourcing from industry sources.
The sole sourcing that I understand the government is talking about is in the context of it being an emergency and the product has to be purchased and there is only one supplier of the product. What we are talking about with respect to this sole sourcing is that we have let our military resources dwindle to such a point that we have committed it to an action where it needs equipment but we do not have the time to go through the normal tendering and evaluation process. We are simply taking what we can get because it is available.
Canada's military mission in Afghanistan November 15th, 2005
Madam Chair, I am honoured to take part in this debate regarding our Canadian Forces operation in Afghanistan but first let me say that this side of the House, and I am sure that side of the House, have the utmost faith, respect and trust in our young men and women who are going to Afghanistan. All of us understand the fears and concerns that family and friends have for our people who are there and those who are going. I think that is without question.
I would like to reinforce many of the comments made by my colleague from Carleton—Mississippi Mills with respect to terrorism. I would like to make it very clear that my party opposes any use of terrorism in the world. Terrorism threatens the very values a society such as ours is built on. All forms of terrorism must be confronted and defeated whenever and wherever possible because it is in Canada's national interest to make the world a safer place.
Terrorism is a very real threat in this country. We should never dismiss the war on terror as something that only affects our neighbours in the United States. Terrorists have reached out and attacked the innocent in London, Madrid and Bali. Canada is often named as a target country by terrorist leaders and there is little doubt that we too shall come under attack some day in the future.
However there has been poor communication about this venture. We as Canadians must accept the fact that we are on the terrorist list of targeted countries and we must also accept our global responsibility to do what we can to defeat terrorism. Canada has a role to play to make the world a safer place and, above all, to keep Canadians safe.
The Prime Minister has chosen to commit our Canadian Forces to take a lead role in the restoration of Afghanistan in the U.S. lead Operation Enduring Freedom. What is disturbing to me is that while our forces readily accept any challenge, the government has not brought this decision before the House for debate. Instead, the government prefers to make announcements outside the chamber and avoid serious examination by members of Parliament.
Given the seriousness of this mission, Canadians should have been afforded an opportunity to hear from the Prime Minister in this very chamber as to what our objectives and exit strategies were with respect to operations in Afghanistan.
Late this summer, while the House of Commons was adjourned, the government announced that Canada's role in Afghanistan would be expanding and troops would be moved into the dangerous Kandahar region. While the Minister of National Defence has made speeches in a variety of public forums about the new commitment, he has never made a statement or debated the issue in Parliament until this evening. He has never explained why we are abandoning our role in Kabul and why we have taken on a larger and more aggressive role in Kandahar.
Today, Senator Colin Kenny, the Liberal chair of the Senate defence committee, is quoted as saying:
There hasn't been a national debate about this. I don't see the kind of national commitment that says, 'Yes, this is worth sending our guys over there—that this is worth our neighbour's kid dying over there.
I don't think they [the government] have made their case to the public for that.
In July of this year, Major-General Andrew Leslie said, “Afghanistan is a 20 year venture”. This is the only known timeline discussed for this mission. I understand tonight what the minister said with respect to it being a one-year commitment but until tonight Major-General Leslie's comment was the only one we had in the public domain. Another example of how we must learn details of this mission from sources outside this chamber.
Taken at face value, 20 years is an incredible length of time for our Canadian Forces to be committed over there given their other responsibilities. This will involve a severe taxing on our already exhausted forces and it will also bring casualties and cost an enormous amount of money.
Moreover, if in fact we are there for the next 20 years, how will Canada respond to other hotspots in the world? One has to ask whether the mandate is achievable and enforceable. Do we have adequate and properly equipped forces? How do we measure progress in this mission? Do we have a clear exit strategy? Will our mission in Afghanistan have an effect on how we are perceived in the world?
Many Canadians would assume that we are going to Afghanistan to keep the peace as we have done in so many other corners of the world but peace has not been achieved in Afghanistan.
We are moving from being a peacekeeping force to a peacemaking force and with that comes some very different realities.
Canada will be sending nearly 1,500 troops to take part in this operation and 250 of them will be taking part in provincial reconstruction teams. I must add that provincial reconstruction teams seem to have a different context depending on who is talking about them. We have talked tonight about different models, American models, British models and perhaps a Canadian model, but Canadians need to understand that this is not building houses for Habitat for Humanity. This is a totally different domain that we are going into. These PRTs bring a promise of adding security to the region and will take a leadership role in rebuilding roads, schools and hospitals in Afghanistan.
As we stand here in this chamber this evening, our troops are halfway across the world and are facing hostile danger in that wartorn country. For the PRTs to achieve any real progress they must first instill security. To do so, we must be offensive and that means our troops will seek out and destroy the enemy. This will not be an easy task. Afghanistan is known as Russia's Vietnam. It is an old and complex country of tribal warlords and lawlessness driven by the opium drug trade.
Many of the terrorists who took part in the 9/11 attacks in the United States were trained in terrorist compounds in Afghanistan while it was under Taliban rule. The Taliban also gave save haven to Osama bin Laden and ran a ruthless, oppressive regime during its tenure. It is the Taliban that we now seek. Its insurgency continues to destabilize the southern regions around Kandahar.
Just this past year, Canada's new foreign policy was revealed and poorly received by many critics. To complement that, the Minister of National Defence tabled the results of his defence policy review with the arrival of the new Chief of the Defence Staff. By hastily committing our forces to Afghanistan without a clear plan, our generals are left to scramble a fighting force together in a very short period of time.
With that in mind, it is very clear that the Liberals once again have created a crisis within our Canadian Forces. It has been well documented that the cupboards have been bare for over a decade. The Liberal government sidestepped or completely ignored cries for help from our forces. It ignored the demands for more military spending from our allies in NATO and the United Nations. Instead of enhancing the capabilities, the Liberals deprived them of new money and resources.
Last winter in budget 2005 it had finally caught up to them. The Liberals made bold statements of giant cash infusions into our forces.
However the devil is in the details as is the case for most of what the government has produced over the last 13 years. Some $12 billion have been promised over the next five years but in reality only $7 billion is new money. Of that increase in military spending, only $1.1 billion will go to the Canadian Forces in the first two years. That is barely enough to maintain what we already have. The rest of the cash, some $6 billion, is promised in years three, four and five. A lofty goal made by that party.
In recent days, as we prepare to engage hostile forces in Afghanistan, the Minister of National Defence has been floating the concept of sole source contracting, a measure that is used to sidestep normal procurement practices to expedite the delivery of essential equipment to our troops who are already in theatre. This is clearly an admission of poor planning and neglect by the Liberal government.
The Minister of National Defence is desperately trying to purchase heavy artillery, fixed wing and heavy airlift capabilities, as well as armour protection for our vehicles. Instead of going through a competitive bid process, we are now subjecting ourselves to potentially substandard equipment because it is readily available for delivery. With the corrupt record of the government, one must consider that sole source contracting also opens the doors to abuse because of a lack of financial controls.
In conclusion, let me very clear. Canada has always risen to the occasion with its allies to combat evil in the world. The Conservative Party believes our presence in Afghanistan makes sense and is very much essential to our national interests. Taking an active role in Afghanistan also fulfills our duty and responsibility in the global community's war on terror. By pursuing terrorists to the best of our ability, we are making a significant contribution to winning the war on terror.
However, the government has handicapped our Canadian Forces through devastating budget cuts since 1993. It has left our troops in a vulnerable state with inadequate equipment, poor planning and duty fatigue.
A Conservative government would never put the Canadian Forces in the position it is in today. My party will continue to support the Canadian Forces on any of its missions, including this one.
Petitions November 4th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition from the congregation of St. Matthew's Lutheran Church in Tavistock, Ontario, most of whom are constituents of mine.
They call upon Parliament to ban the production, promotion and distribution of a film based on the murders of Tammy Homolka, Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy by Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka.
Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act November 1st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that it absolutely affects us. It affects us in our agriculture, in our cost of production for agriculture and in our input costs. All of that is involved in this.
The other thing it affects, with all due respect to Canadians, is that it costs us in our industry. It costs us jobs. Most of our country is spread out and consequently transportation costs to get to work and to deliver products are major components of what the cost is of doing business in this country. When our taxes are too high, and in this regard they become somewhat of a hidden tax, but they put us at an uncompetitive edge on the world stage.
Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act November 1st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has some issues that from his perspective certainly make sense to him.
I am not opposed to Canadians getting back some of their tax money that they should not have lost in the first place. There is no question about that. Some of these things, with all due respect, talk about “may do”. In my riding of Oxford, public transit money is not really going to do a great deal for most of the riding. We understand that. We understand that some of this is smoke and mirrors, that it does exist out there but that it gets brought forward, is rehashed and is made to look like it is something new. We are certainly not opposed to deserving Canadians getting tax money back in their own hands.
Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act November 1st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague has probably already identified that the former minister of the environment is astute in his assessment of where this money is coming from. It is fair to say that this program has perhaps more to do with an eye on an election than it does on good management and helping Canadians who have been overtaxed for a long time. My friend well understands that the former minister has a good grasp on what this program is all about.