Debates of Nov. 7th, 2006

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to follow up on a question I asked in the House of Commons on October 25 in relation to manufacturing.

Ontario and Quebec have witnessed a massive loss of manufacturing jobs. The auto industry in my riding has also suffered some critical losses in everything from assembly to parts. A series of different businesses involved in mould making have also gone under in the past number of years.

At the present time, the Conservative government is pursuing a free trade deal with Korea but it is not acting on an actual policy.

My question on October 25 was for the Minister of International Trade because, in the previous government, he was the Liberal minister of industry who had promised on a number of different occasions to table a national auto policy in this chamber. The flip-flopping, floor-crossing minister then joined the Conservative Party and now sits as the Minister of International Trade. Somewhere in this vortex, the file the minister had on auto policy has disappeared. I do not know whether it was left in his brief case or in a drawer, whether it fell on the floor or whether the Minister of Industry killed it.

When I asked another question in the House of Commons, it became quite clear that the Minister of Industry had killed the aeronautics file, which was something that was supposed to be brought forward.

I would like to find out whether the minister actually talked with his colleague. The public should understand that the two ministers sit together in cabinet. A document was supposed to be out there. Either the previous Liberal and now Conservative minister misled Parliament, this House and the people of Canada, which could be a possibility and he could own up to that possibility, or alternatively, the present minister could talk with his colleague. They go to work together and they sit together. They could actually roll out what was done before.

I would like to find out from the minister what happened to that auto policy. Did it ever exist like the minister in the previous administration said it did or is the current Minister of Industry out to kill any programs or services for the auto industry? I know the minister met with CAPC recently but that is not enough. We have been fighting for specific things for years and I want to see them tabled in this chamber.

However, the first step is to find out whether or not the Minister of International Trade, when he was the Liberal minister of industry, misled this Parliament and, as he sits now as a Conservative, did he ever have that policy? Is the current Minister of Industry killing those files?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government has a deep understanding and appreciation of the Canadian automotive industry. I am from Oshawa where the people and the community depend greatly on the auto sector, so I know how vital the industry is to the economic well-being of a city and a country.

We are aware that the auto industry in Canada faces significant challenges. Some of these challenges are global, some of these are specific to certain manufacturers and others are common throughout the industry here in Canada. It is clear that no one stakeholder can address all of these issues. Each has a distinct role to play. Only through collective action can we ensure the continued strength of the auto industry here in Canada.

That is why two weeks ago the Minister of Industry met with the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council to discuss how we can collectively address the industry's needs. It was a very successful meeting, which included senior industry representatives, representatives from the Quebec government and the minister's counterpart from the Ontario government.

The minister was impressed by the high level of enthusiasm and commitment to the CAPC process. The auto industry representatives around the table were pleased with the CAPC meeting, with the minister's commitment to the CAPC process and with the efforts the government has made to support the industry.

We know there is more work to be done. CAPC working groups will identify priority areas where action can be taken to help the industry grow. Together, we will develop clear, focused and measurable actions to effectively support the Canadian automotive industry.

The Minister of Industry has committed to CAPC to working with his cabinet colleagues to advocate for and support the industry. The CAPC discussions were an important step and the minister looks forward to the next meeting in May 2007.

We know that many of the challenges faced by the auto industry are shared by other manufacturing sectors, which is why this government is committed to creating an overall business climate that leads to greater manufacturing investment, innovation and jobs. This includes a more competitive tax system.

Budget 2006 introduced 29 tax cuts for businesses and individuals, including the elimination of the capital tax, reduced corporate taxes and the elimination of the corporate surtax. We are also committed to ensuring that regulations are designed to meet their goals at the least possible cost to business. We are working with business groups to cut crippling red tape. Our border and infrastructure measures are helping all manufacturers, including auto, to more easily move their goods and reach their customers.

We continue to work with industry stakeholders to explore measures to support Canada's manufacturers. Canada's new government will work to ensure that Canada remains positioned as one of the best locations in the world for manufacturing.

I am looking forward to seeing the final report from the industry committee.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we still have no answer to the specific question of what happened to that auto policy that was supposed to be there.

It is interesting that the parliamentary secretary seems to have the speaking notes of the former administration but he does not have the actual answer to the specific question.

The constituents of Oshawa and other automotive communities need to understand that there was supposed to be an auto policy. Taking nine months to meet with CAPC is completely irresponsible, especially going cap in hand and not offering a single thing to the industry during some of the most difficult times. That is unacceptable.

We have a series of different automotive struggles in this country. One of the most recent struggles has been in my constituency with Ford where we could have actually had something rolled out, some type of a program, an incentive or at least a carrot, something that would get things started in a positive way. We have not seen that. I have resolutions from the Corporation of the County of Essex and its municipal politicians who are calling for federal and provincial intervention.

It is not good enough for the government to wait nine months to call a meeting and actually bring nothing to the organizations that, at the end of the day, affect Canadian jobs.

The parliamentary secretary should answer the question. Did the auto policy come over from the previous minister or did the current minister kill it? It is unacceptable to not have an answer on that question.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the new government is looking at this sector very responsibly and the member even mentioned Korea. A free trade agreement with South Korea has the potential to deliver significant commercial benefits across a wide range of the Canadian economy, from agriculture, to high tech services, to investment.

We are aware of the concerns of certain sectors, including the automotive sector, about the potential impact of a free trade agreement with Korea. The government has studied the impact on the Canadian automotive sector of a free trade agreement with Korea. Our studies indicate that any impact will be very limited.

It is important to note that the Canadian auto industry has been a major beneficiary of trade liberalization through NAFTA and it currently exports 85% of its production.

The Government of Canada consulted extensively with Canadians, including the auto sector, prior to launching these negotiations. We continue to work with stakeholders to ensure their interests and concerns are reflected in the negotiating positions.

The government has not set a deadline for the conclusion of negotiations but we will continue to take the time necessary to ensure the best deal for Canada and that a good deal is made.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration about what he intended to do with regard to the issue of undocumented workers. Sadly, the response, as has been his habit, simply did not address the issue.

Let us be clear. There is a serious problem with our immigration system. The points system for assessing new immigrants to Canada is undeniably flawed. The points system clearly favours professionals who apply at a time when this country has a significant demand for tradespeople. The government actively recruits professional employees and has in place programs that facilitate a grant of citizenship to them. There is no such program for tradespeople.

Canada needs more labourers and skilled workers. Labour and management representatives, along with elected officials in Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver, have clearly voiced the need for more construction workers. We now know that rather than raising target levels in response to these realities, the minister has in fact cut the number of skilled workers his government will permit to enter Canada.

Indeed, rather than allowing foreign workers who want to work in the needed industries to immigrate legally to Canada, he is actually creating a situation where they are forced to come through the back door. Having come to Canada to work hard in jobs where they are so desperately needed, they are then forced to live in hiding. There are some instances outside of the protection provided by union membership where, without this union support, these workers find themselves vulnerable to such despicable practices as blackmail in the workplace and having to work in unsafe conditions.

Despite having to live and work in this way, they continue to participate in our economy. They and their families become a part of our communities. They have children who are Canadians and they raise them here in this country. Over time, they become the embodiment of the Canadian work ethic, embracing Canadian values and immersing themselves in this country's cultural life.

There are as many as 200,000 undocumented workers whom we need as workers in this country and who desperately want to become Canadian citizens. They contribute to our society and are trying to do the right thing, yet they are being forced from this country. Opponents may try to claim that these people are breaking the law. In reality, the problem in this instance is the law itself, not the people. Our immigration system needs to be fixed now.

The previous Liberal government had begun the process of fixing the immigration system. The Liberal government set reasonable immigration levels for 2005 and subsequently admitted thousands more than the set goal.

We invested significant energy in and attention to the immigration system and were willing to invest even more effort. Before the last election, the Liberal government was moving forward to make some of the important and needed changes. A plan was created to regularize undocumented workers.

Today we have a Conservative government that does not have to begin the process of change all over again. A plan is already written. The various concerns that have delayed a solution in the past are already addressed. All that remains is for the plan to begin implementation.

This issue goes beyond the usual party politics. This issue is about what kind of nation we want to be. Let us work on building a better future for these people and, as a result, for this country. We should strive for a stronger economy that will create better cities and a real sense of justice and fair play within our borders.

The Canadian Labour Congress tells us that documented and undocumented foreign worker in low-skilled occupations represent an increasing proportion of the Canadian workforce.

This June, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration passed a motion to halt the deportation of undocumented workers until a humane and logical solution is found. The minister chose to disregard this motion, so my question for the minister is simple. What can we do to help regularize these workers and overhaul the immigration system? Will the government commit to setting up a task force to work across party lines to build a better immigration system and find a solution for the issue of Canada's undocumented workers?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt. This member has raised the fact that the system is flawed and needs to be fixed. The Liberals had 13 years to do something about it and failed.

Canadians see the strong and growing economy under the new Conservative government. So robust is Canada's economy that employers in some regions and for some industries are contending with labour shortages that they long ago warned the old Liberal government were coming.

Canada's new government is working to address this challenge. We passed a budget and are developing policies that end the Liberal immigrant funding freezes and neglect. We are standing up for Canada by putting Canadians to work and attracting and retaining skilled foreign workers and professionals. Canadians know that this is what a responsive immigration program does.

From the outset of his appointment, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration stated that Canada's immigration system must be geared to the needs of Canadians and to the Canadian economy. The new government increased immigration targets to their highest level in 15 years, demonstrating that Conservatives know Canada needs well educated, highly skilled people.

The minister also knows that this country was built with bricks and mortar and we need people with hard hands. Canada accepts 100,000 temporary workers a year. This summer, our government opened new temporary foreign worker units. This fall, the minister will be taking further steps to make Canada's temporary foreign worker program more responsive to labour market needs.

Temporary foreign workers get Canadian work experience. They learn our languages. They adapt to the Canadian way of life. However, under the rules the Liberals created, these workers, who have all the ingredients for success, get sent home just when they are getting settled here. As recently as this morning, the minister stated to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that he is looking for ways to give people who take part in our legitimate temporary foreign worker program the chance to call Canada home.

Yet the member for Davenport voted against our budget and against increases for immigrant literacy and language training and programs that help them integrate into our new communities. He and his party stand opposed to our government's work to improve the temporary foreign worker program.

On January 23, Canadians showed that they knew the Liberals were ineffectual when it came to dealing with immigration and labour matters. What word other than ineffectual explains how one can be chair of a Liberal caucus committee on undocumented workers but fail to get anyone in the cabinet of the former government to listen or implement a plan?

The member for Davenport and some of his colleagues say that a regularization scheme was ready to roll out the door had it not been for the fact that the Liberals lost the confidence of Canadians last November. Neither the member for Davenport nor his colleagues explained why the Liberals did not think enough of this plan or this issue to make it part of their election platform. It was a pretty thick platform with a lot of commitments, where everything was a priority. They even included old promises that they broke for 13 years.

Still, there was no mention of undocumented workers or regularization schemes. In any event, Canadians voted for a government that reflects their values and commitment to fairness and the rule of law.

The bottom line is that any scheme that gives legal status to foreign nationals who have not been authorized to immigrate to Canada and are not participating in a legitimate worker program is unfair to those who have applied to come here legally. Any scheme that rewards with legal status foreign nationals who are working in Canada without authorization undermines the rule of law, our existing employment programs for Canadians and for foreigners, and the work of Canada's new government in building a better, more responsive, legitimate foreign worker program.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with an answer like that, no wonder they could not get anybody elected in the three largest cities in this country.

I understand that the government either cannot or will not make a commitment here and now to truly fix the immigration system. Therefore, instead, I am asking the minister if he would be willing to set up a task force that would meet regularly to discuss the issue and include in these meetings the stakeholder groups, including union representation and community groups.

Many will say that the place for this work is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. It is my experience that in terms of this portfolio and the ministry, the minister must be aware that the issue goes beyond just his ministry. It includes issues of justice, finance, labour and skills development, as well as many others. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is already busy and there are many other groups and partners that need to be brought in, including many unions who continue to work hard on this issue, municipal governments, community service organizations and so on.

If the minister has other suggestions, I am open to hearing them. Will he join me in setting up such a task force? If not, what are the alternatives? How does he see the resolution of this issue taking place? What is he planning to do to resolve the issue of undocumented workers?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes that the member for Davenport and his party failed to do anything about the number of people who are in Canada illegally except watch their numbers grow over 13 years.

We also recognize that the former Liberal government left a backlog of over 800,000 people waiting to come here through legitimate channels. We deal every day with the former Liberal government's failure to make immigration and labour programs work for Canadians and for Canada.

Canada's new government and Canadians also recognize that the solution to these failings is not to declare an amnesty to say the rules no longer apply. Canadians and their new government respect fairness and the rule of law. Amnesty would be patently unfair to the thousands of people who seek to come to Canada every year and are prepared to follow the rules.

Instead, Canada's new Conservative government is working to find ways to address labour shortages and encourage responsible and responsive immigration. This work is well under way and many groups and stakeholders will be part of that process, but we are not prepared to embrace a stopgap measure that compromises the basic principles of the rule of law.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn and the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to study all votes under National Defence in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007.

I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole.

(House in committee of the whole for consideration of all Votes under National Defence in the Main Estimates, Mr. Bill Blaikie in the chair)

National Defence—Main Estimates 2006-07

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I would like to open this committee of the whole session by making a short statement.

Tonight's debate is being held under Standing Order 81(4)(a) which provides for each of two sets of estimates selected by the Leader of the Opposition to be considered in committee of the whole for up to four hours.

Tonight's debate is a general one on all of the votes under National Defence as provided in the motion adopted on Wednesday, November 1. Parties may use each 15 minute slot for speeches or for questions and answers by one or more of their members.

In the case of speeches, members of the party to which the period is allotted may speak one after the other. The Chair would appreciate it if the first member speaking in each slot would indicate how the time will be used, particularly if it is to be shared.

Please note that pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) hon. members may not speak for more than 10 minutes within the 15 minute period.

When time is to be used for questions and answers, the Chair will expect that the minister's response will reflect approximately the time taken by the question since this time will be counted in the time originally allotted to the party.

I would remind hon. members that according to the special order adopted on Wednesday, November 1, during this evening's debate no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be entertained. At the conclusion of tonight's debate the committee will rise, the estimates under National Defence will be deemed reported and the House will adjourn immediately until tomorrow.

We may now begin tonight's session with the Leader of the Opposition.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver South. I will not be making a speech but will be asking questions. I am sure this will be of great relief to all members of the House.

I would first like to ask the minister about the primary purpose of this mission. I am hoping he will agree with us that the primary purpose of Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is not to bring about a military victory but rather to rebuild that beleaguered country, and that military activities within Afghanistan must be properly tailored to ensure that we achieve that primary goal.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, I do not think that the goals or the tasks given the government in Afghanistan are any different under our government. It is our intention to be part of the NATO alliance and as part of that alliance to help restore proper governance in Afghanistan, to help with the development of the people so they can live a decent life, and to provide security so that insurgents do not interfere with the average lives of the citizens. It is a combination of security, development and governance.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I take it, then, that we are agreed, the minister and I, and that in fact in order to be successful in Afghanistan we cannot rely exclusively on the military victory, but rather, the goal we must have is to win over the support of the local population so that people will not in the end turn back to the Taliban.

The most effective way of doing this, obviously, is through a proper balance between providing security and humanitarian and development assistance, but if we do not provide the people with the basic necessities of life, with potable water, reliable electricity and sound infrastructure, we cannot guarantee success.

My question for the minister is this. Given the reality of the situation on the ground in Kandahar today, are those reconstruction goals truly achievable?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, as the hon. member knows, there are 34 provinces in Afghanistan. There are 26 to 28 provinces that are relatively stable and development is going on with relatively little security effort. In about six provinces, including Kandahar province, the insurgency is quite virulent at the moment and we have had to put in extra efforts, the British, ourselves, the Americans, the Danes and the Dutch, to suppress the insurgency.

Given that, we are still succeeding in Afghanistan. We are still succeeding in Kandahar province. We are proceeding with development. There is U.S. aid development, UN development, Afghan government development, our foreign affairs development. We have development projects and CIDA has development projects and they are proceeding.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Speaking of aid, Mr. Chair, there is obviously considerable pressure to deliver timely aid and we cannot wait to deliver that. General Richards, the British general who is commander of all NATO troops in Afghanistan, said in September that in his view the heavy military phase of the mission was now over and it was time to focus on reconstruction. He went on to say that we have to show in the next six months that the government is on the winning side. He said that if we do not take advantage of this in the next six months then we could pour an additional 10,000 troops in next year and we still would not succeed because we would have lost by then the consent of the people.

Would the minister agree with the assessment of the general in command of our troops in that area and if not, why not?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, I do not agree with the general's assessment of time. There are probably reasons behind his selection of six months. However, it is a critical time in the south, in Kandahar province and we have to suppress the insurgency. That is what we are doing. I believe that we are going to succeed. We have already broken the back of the insurgency in the Kandahar area in a sense that they are not prone to attacking us directly. They will have to revert to suicide bombings and IEDs.

Yes, it is a critical time, but I do not set a six month deadline to it.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am glad the minister mentioned the suicide bombings and IEDs because there is concern obviously that the tactics adopted by the Taliban and the insurgents are starting to replicate tactics that have been adopted in Iraq. Clearly those of us who watch the situation in Iraq are very concerned about whether similar military tactics in Afghanistan would be as unproductive as they are in Iraq at present.

There are questions we need to have answered for the Canadian people today.

The decisions on military tactics that are being taken, while successful from a military point of view, are they undermining the possibility of achieving a true political resolution of the conflict?

Are we assured that the tactics of our allies who may occasionally attempt to fight an underground insurgency with tactics that are more suited to fighting a conventional military force are not unproductive?

Are we concerned that the use of our equipment, the use of tanks among the local population and particularly the use of air power, is such that it is destroying our capacity to reach out to the local population in such a way that we can ultimately achieve success with the overall mission?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think that the military tactics used in the south are appropriate to the situation. Sometimes there are only a few insurgents in the area and they are dealt with in a certain manner. When there are large numbers they have to be dealt with in a conventional manner. For instance, in the Panjwai area when they concentrated into numbers of about 500, we had to deal with them in a conventional manner. They stayed and fought in trenches and so we had to deal with it that way.

With respect to tanks, we have moved tanks into our area to protect our infantry, to make sure that when the Taliban go into areas and fight from the equivalent of pill boxes, that we do not have to send our infantry into get them, that we can use tank fire to take them out.

I think that the tactics of our allies are appropriate to the case in the south.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, the minister would agree that it was never contemplated to use tanks at the beginning and that the use of tanks is an indication of the nature of the change in mission. That takes us really to the question of aid which will be my last question.

We are concerned that aid be delivered in the Kandahar region in ways which will support our troops. We heard in the Senate hearings that some $1.9 million of the military's own money was being spent for local aid in the region. We recently heard in the House about the doubling of discretionary aid to be given to local commanders.

Is the aid from CIDA coming forward in such a way that our military commanders are telling the minister and the government that they are getting the resources they need to provide villagers in the region with the help they need so that they can get the backup to make a military success of a mission? Without that they will not be successful because the local people will not have the clean water, the roads and other infrastructure they need to make a success out of this mission.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

I will answer two issues that you brought up. The first one is tanks. It is quite appropriate for us to have tanks there. We are putting them there to protect our infantry, to reduce the risks against our infantry. We are trying to reduce casualties.

With respect to aid, CIDA has aid. You are going to have to ask the CIDA minister about her aid program. We have a program as you mentioned. We are spending some millions of dollars. In fact we have doubled that effort in the Kandahar area. I have asked the CDS to ask the commanders on the ground if they can develop projects that the military can run that are efficient and actually get results in the Kandahar area. We are looking at that now from a military point of view.

[The Chair, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Just before recognizing the hon. member for Vancouver South, I want to remind members that even in committee of the whole House we are supposed to refer to each other in the third person. There has been a lot of you this and you that going back and forth. I would ask members to observe the rules of the House in that respect also in committee of the whole.

The hon. member for Vancouver South.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, six months ago the House voted to extend the mission. At that time the Prime Minister said that he would extend the mission anyway, regardless of the outcome of the vote, for at least one year.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that NATO was requiring a force commitment the following week after the extension if one was granted. The fact is that the Minister of National Defence, when he was asked about what the troop commitments were at NATO, said that he would table the troop commitments, that he did not know. Obviously that was one of the questions that one should have asked at the time of the extension of NATO since NATO was asking us for a force commitment.

At the time of extension it is clear that the government had no plan for the extension. The military is scrambling to accommodate the extension now. “Scrambling” is the minister's own word. Why did the government not ask for and have enough troop commitments and workable caveats before the extension was granted by the House? Why not, since the government says the sacrifices of our soldiers give us the influence, why not appropriate caveats and troop commitments?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, before we made the extension to February 2009, we sought the advice of the military, the diplomats and the aid people to make certain that we could meet that commitment and we were advised we could.

As to the word “scrambling”, I think the member took a clip from the weekend where I used the word. I was referring to the issue that I have asked the military to try to ensure in principle that no one who was in direct combat returns to Afghanistan before February 2009. I have set a higher standard than is required, but what I am trying to do is reduce the risk on the individuals who go outside the wire and who were in combat. The military advised me that they are quite confident they will be able to achieve that. We will be able to achieve that by our existing people in the military and by our recruiting.

The point about re-roling people was also brought up. Let us not misunderstand that term. We have no intention of taking existing sailors or existing airmen and making them infantrymen. What we were talking about is making sure that the burden across the armed forces is equal. A truck driver in the navy could end up as a truck driver in Afghanistan. That is the kind of ideas we are talking about.

The advice I have is that we are fully confident that we can meet that commitment of mine.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, it is quite appropriate that the minister is talking about re-roling because that is the question I have for him. We now know from General Hillier that there is going to be re-roling. The minister has said there is not going to be any re-roling. We are trying to finesse those answers.

The fact is that we are truly scrambling now because we do not have the adequate troops to meet the needs of an extension for two years that was granted here and was brought forward as a motion as a cynical political ploy by the government to play political games with our troops. I think it is absolutely abhorrent that this was done because now the fitness requirement is being watered down. We are truly scrambling.

General Hillier says that there is going to be re-rolling definitely. The minister had said there was going to be no re-roling. We know that the troops in training are going to be re-roled. In fact, I am told that those who join the navy might have to go for infantry training so they could actually be deployed to Afghanistan. We know there is going to be re-roling of more than just truck drivers or cooks from the navy or air force.

The question is, who is in charge here? Is the minister in charge or is General Hillier in charge? Is there going to be re-roling or is there going to be no re-roling? I want a very clear answer in the House once and for all.