Jack Harris

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I guess it was all mirage, the decision of the vice-admiral to balance the priorities.

As I understand, the priorities in this letter were that the Victoria class submarines and the frigates were a priority over and above the coastal patrol vessels. However, if the minister's view is that it was all a mirage, that nothing happened, that the decision was not made, then we either have to accept him at his word or continue to wonder what goes on behind the scenes.

Speaking of mirages, let us go to the F-18 fighters jets. We just finished in March of this year a significant upgrade and modernization of our F-18 fleet. There were two phases to that modernization and upgrade. I think the last 80, or 79 jets, have been delivered from that program in March of this year. Yet we continue to hear rumours of an immediate plan to replace those jets.

Could the minister tell us what the expected useful life of the F-18s that we have just finished refurbishing and modernizing would be? What would that be from here on in?

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, that is sort of strange, because General Natynczyk is quoted in the Globe and Mail as praising Vice-Admiral McFadden and defending his balancing of priorities. In other words, he supported the fact that Vice-Admiral McFadden was making decisions based on the budget allocation, although he countermanded the order.

This misinformation does not seem to be coming from the CDS. Could the minister say that he did not know anything about this until the CDS clarified it, as he called it?

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, let me get this straight. Is the minister now saying that there never was an order by Vice-Admiral McFadden although it was rescinded by the Chief of the Defence Staff?

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister for his undertaking in that regard.

With respect to the navy, we have had a recent kerfuffle where the Chief of the Defence Staff announced on May 14 that a previous order of Vice-Admiral McFadden's would be reversed. This order would have affected the operations of about half of the fleet of the navy.

The question is whether Vice-Admiral McFadden did indeed issue the order and what led to the order being issued. Afterwards, when the directive hit the media, the minister said that these operational decisions had not been taken.

Could the minister explain to the House the discrepancy with what the Chief of the Defence Staff said later that same day?

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, in terms of the estimates themselves, up until a few years ago I understand the practice was that votes 1 to 5 would be broken down in terms of the various line items for the maritime air and land components of the Canadian Forces.

Is it possible for the minister to provide a breakdown of votes 1 to 5 of the main estimates to indicate what the amounts for each command would be? I see there are breakdowns by program, for example on page 18-7. It does deal with land readiness and maritime readiness.

In terms of votes 1 to 5, I see them all lumped together. I understand that has not been the practice until the last couple of years.

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, what are the expected incremental costs until 2011, until the end of the mission?

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I thank the minister for his answer. I know the Governor General plays an honorary role, but I do think it would surprise many Canadians that the government had no say in this, and I think the minister is slightly disingenuous in not recognizing that. We look forward to hearing from him and his government on future recognition of Canadian sacrifices.

In speaking of Afghanistan, since we are in the estimates committee and there has been some debate about this and different figures have been going around, can the minister provide the House with the full and incremental costs of the Afghanistan mission from 2001 to the present, and provide us with an indication of the expected full and incremental costs of Task Force Afghanistan until the withdrawal in 2011?

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this committee of the whole to study the National Defence estimates.

First of all, let me reiterate what the minister said when he last spoke during his allotted time and on which I do not think there is any disagreement in the House. I think we would unanimity in this House in the support for the valour, sacrifice and commitment of our troops and personnel who are making the sacrifice, in some cases the ultimate sacrifice, in acting on behalf of their country in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

On that note, the minister talked about a number of new awards and medals that have been determined, and I think we all support that. In fact, I was present at the first awarding of the new Sacrifice Medal, which honours the sacrifice of those who are killed or injured in the line of duty, starting on, I believe, January 2001. The ceremony was very moving, with the Governor General, the chief of the defence staff and the Prime Minister there as well. These ceremonies have been held across the country ever since.

I have heard from a number of people, though, a request that such medals actually be backdated. As the historian, Jack Granatstein, told the defence committee a little while ago, there are maybe over 100 people who lost their lives in peacekeeping activities for the Government of Canada over the last large number of years.

Is there some consideration being given, and would the minister give consideration, to extending that Sacrifice Medal back in time so that those who were injured or killed in the line of duty on behalf of their country during so-called peacekeeping efforts over the last 30 or 40 years could also be recognized? It obviously would be posthumous, including for some of those who did serve and were wounded and who have perhaps died since then, but this suggestion is something that has been brought to my attention by a number of people.

Would the minister consider backdating that medal or coming up with a similar medal?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 27th, 2010]

With regard to government of Canada interactions with the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS): (a) is the government aware of any allegations of torture or abuse by the NDS within Kandahar province since August 2005 and, if so, (i) what were the dates and locations of those allegations, (ii) what follow-up was done, (iii) what Canadian Forces or Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade investigations were carried out, (iv) what were the conclusions of those investigations, (v) is the government aware of any NDS investigations, (vi) what outcomes from NDS investigations were communicated back to the government; (b) have site visits been conducted on NDS facilities and, if so, (i) what date were they carried out, (ii) where were they carried out; and (c) did the government come to the assessment that "Canadian partnership in NDS projects without prior insight into its methods runs the risk of appearing to condone human rights abuses and acts which would be illegal under Canadian law'' and, if so, when?

[Petitions, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of a number of Canadians. They are petitioning the House of Commons to ban asbestos in all its forms and issue a just transition program for asbestos workers and the communities that they live in.

Asbestos is the greatest industrial killer that the world has ever known. This country remains one of the largest producers and exporters of asbestos. In our own Parliament, we are taking asbestos out of the buildings, because of the deadly nature of asbestos, at a cost of many millions of dollars. It is banned for use in Canada, yet Canada continues to export asbestos to other countries of the world.

The petitioners are calling on Canada to end all government subsidies of asbestos, both in Canada and abroad, and to stop blocking international health and safety conventions designed to protect workers from asbestos, such as the Rotterdam convention. It is time Canada started acting with integrity on this issue. We banned it in this country for use. We should be banning the production and export of it. It is a deadly industrial product that has been known for many years to cause serious illness and death.

It is time Canada started acting on the principles, and took action to support and provide a just transition program for all asbestos workers and the communities that they live in. The key here is to ban the export of this deadly industrial killer and ensure that we do not contribute to deaths around the world.