Debates of May 27th, 2010

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2010-11

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, the short answer is that it is to be determined but we have indicated very clearly that we will respect and work within the parameters of the parliamentary motion.

The Prime Minister has been even more crystal clear in his response and indicated that we will be out of Afghanistan. So that is on the record, the hon. member I am sure is aware. However, if he is proposing something different we would like to hear it.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, the last time I checked, the minister is a minister in the government. We are just the opposition. The question I have concerns the lack of clarity on this issue. The minister has said certain things and the Prime Minister has said certain other things. The minister just now opened the door to the presence of troops in Afghanistan and indicated that it is to be determined whether we will engage in training of the military personnel. Why are we not sharing that information with Canadians and the opposition and having a dialogue? Are we sharing any of that information with our allies as to our future plans?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, while the hon. member sounds very reasonable in his questioning here, every opportunity that we have taken at committee, I am reminded by the parliamentary secretary to defence, to discuss the mission, which is why the special committee was set up, has been blocked by the member opposite and the members of the opposition, focusing solely on the subject of Taliban prisoners.

The government has on numerous occasions tried to raise the subject of an open and inclusive dialogue on the subject of the future of the Afghanistan mission and it has been rebuffed at every occasion.

I want to come back. ThePrime Minister has been clear and I have been crystal clear again. We will respect the parliamentary motion and that will see our soldiers leave Afghanistan in 2011.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

This concludes the first 15 minutes. The hon. Minister of National Defence.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, as per the instructions of the Chair, I want to indicate that I will be taking my 10 minutes and that the member for Medicine Hat and the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley will be using the final 5 minutes for questions.

I am pleased to be here tonight and I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for choosing the Department of National Defence to allow us this important platform to discuss a number of important issues as they relate to the Department of National Defence and to speak as a minister directly to the values, the virtues and the valour of the men and women of the Canadian Forces, those who provide such incredible service to our country and who are so capable and committed in what they do for Canada and, I would add to that, their families who support them.

Members will see from the main estimates that our government's focus remains the security of Canada, conducting operations and implementing the Canada first defence strategy.

As the Minister of National Defence, I have had the pleasure and the privilege of seeing the Canadian Forces up close and personal. One word describes our men and women in uniform and that is magnificent. It makes one feel very proud to be Canadian when one sees the work that they do. One could not be prouder when one sees how they approach their work with such professionalism and patriotism.

Six weeks ago, I was in Afghanistan and I was humbled by the courage and accomplishments of our troops. A few days after that, I had the opportunity, along with the Chief of the Defence Staff, Walt Natynczyk, who is here with us, to travel to Canadian Forces Station Alert in the Canadian Arctic. I witnessed those same values that served the Joint Task Force (North) that took part in Operation Nunalivut and were participating with a special group within the Canadian Forces and those are our Canadian Rangers.

At the beginning of this month, as the navy commences its 100th centennial serving Canadians, I joined with others at Saint John's Harbour as the HMCS Fredericton returned for refueling on its way back to its home port. She was pulling into Saint John's Harbour and it was reminiscent of the many times in our history when Canadian naval vessels returned to home port. To be there and to see the faces of the awaiting families looking for their loved one on the deck of that ship was truly heartwarming. The Fredericton was returning after completing its sixth month counterpiracy and counterterrorism deployment in the Gulf of Aden, as did the HMCS Winnipeg in ville de Québec before her, and many other Canadian ships that have served around the world.

As a Canadian, I am very proud of what our men and women in uniform do every day, whether here at home in guarding our massive coastline and land mass, training for deployments on 17 missions, including Afghanistan, or participating in international missions, whether they be NATO or closer to home with NORAD. At home and away, person for person, our Canadian Forces are second to none.

I am proud of the work that our government is doing with our Canadian Forces. I am proud to be part of a government that supports and stands behind their efforts.

Two years ago, the Prime Minister and I announced the Canada first defence strategy in Halifax and it carved out an important path for the future of the Canadian Forces. Outside this chamber, carved on the Peace Tower is the historic words “Where there is no vision, the people perish”. I would suggest, with the Canadian Forces, where there is no plan the forces falter. The Canada first defence strategy is that plan. It is a very visionary, long-reaching plan and one that will ensure the success of future operations and the continued success of the Canadian Forces.

As proof of that and how our government's plans and investments are paying off, these can very much be seen in the actions and the capabilities of the men and women in uniform and what they are doing. As an example of what they have done over the last six months, almost 4,000 military personnel worked with the RCMP and other partners to provide security at the Vancouver Olympic Games, a hugely successful event that demonstrated our country's best and, as part of that, our best in the Canadian Forces doing their important work.

At the very same time, 2,000 members of Joint Task Force were deployed within 24 hours to the crisis and the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti. Canada was among the first of those countries that responded to have boots on the ground. The HMCS Halifax and Athabaskan pulled in Jacmel and Leogane and within hours much needed supplies of equipment and, most of all, humanitarian aid was being made available to the people in Haiti.

During all of this we had almost 3,000 troops serving in Afghanistan and another 3,000 preparing to deploy. As always, at our bases, in our training regiment and throughout the communities of Canada we have incredibly dedicated people serving our country and serving the larger international community to the best of their ability. And we are not done yet.

2010 will be a decisive and challenging year for the Canadian Forces. With the resources of the International Security Assistance Force focusing around Kandahar, our Canadian Forces are better placed than ever before to deliver real and lasting improvements to the people of Afghanistan. I expect that we will have a chance to discuss this mission in more detail tonight.

The Canadian Forces do their jobs superbly well. They are recognized and respected around the world.

Next month, Canada is hosting international leaders during the G8 and G20 summits. As they were for the Vancouver Olympics, the Canadian Forces have been called upon to support the RCMP in providing security for these events.

I am proud of the confidence with which we can invite the world to our doorstep—due in part to the confidence Canadians—and the world—have in the Canadian Forces' abilities.

Our capabilities, our flexibility, our influence in the global community comes as a result of the hard work of the military and civilian personnel who strive every day to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. And it is also the result of our government's determination to end years of neglect and to make systematic and prudent investment in Canadian Forces to build the capability and capacity they need to do the work we, and Canadians, expect of them.

Implementing the Canada first defence strategy is a big undertaking, and one of our key priorities of course has always been investment in personnel. We are committed through the Canada first defence strategy to increasing the size of the forces to 70,000 regular and 30,000 reserve force personnel, but like most other employers that are trying to recruit the best workers in a sometimes competitive environment, we are also facing demographic pressures. A lot of people will retire over the next 10 years and that attrition factor very much factors into our plan.

Despite this, I am happy to report that we have seen a 6,500 regular force recruit increase take enrollment each year over the last three years. That is to say we have exceeded our expectations with respect to recruiting numbers and we continue to have great success. The regular force now numbers 68,000 men and women, and we are confident we will hit our 70,000 mark well ahead of time. I can suggest as well that the reserve force is also on pace.

The government also believes in taking care, most importantly, of our men and women in uniform and their families. Over the last year we have implemented 19 integrated personnel support centres across the country, where we coordinate services for ill and injured Canadian Forces members, veterans and their families here in Canada. There is a great obligation felt by those in the force that we continue to improve upon these services.

There was also the launch of the “Be The Difference” campaign led by the chief of the defence staff. We are working hard to build a culture of understanding for our military that mental health is as important as physical health. Taking care of our personnel and their families is something we always are going to try to strive to do better.

Hon. members will note that the main estimates include an increase over the last year of almost $600 million to supplement the ongoing procurement projects. This money will help support key acquisitions like the purchase of new land combat vehicles and Chinook helicopters. It will improve our equipment across the board and purchase new modern generation Hercules transport planes to replace our current fleet. This will complement the C-17 fleet that we now have in operation.

The Speech from the Throne reiterated the strategic importance of a strong domestic shipbuilding industry, which we will be launching in the very near future. I will speak to infrastructure in greater detail.

In conclusion, I would suggest this has been a tremendous year for the Canadian Forces, a difference in defence of this nation is being made by these dedicated individuals. Today we will be discussing the investments to ensure their ongoing safety and support throughout the country so that the Canadian Forces can continue to carry out the missions that we expect of them, and Canadians can continue to be proud of the work that they do abroad.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chair, while Canadian Olympians and Paralympians were setting new records during the Vancouver 2010 Winter Games, some 4,500 Canadian Forces personnel were quietly working behind the scenes in support of civilian agencies to ensure the security of all those who flocked to beautiful British Columbia to be part of the extraordinary games.

I understand the scale and complexity of the Canadian Forces' contribution to Olympic security, Operation Podium, was unprecedented. It involved maritime, land and air forces, which together monitored the 10,000 square kilometres joint operational area and helped secure specific venues. In short, the Canadian Forces helped to ensure that the Olympics would be remembered as an incredibly successful sporting event.

Could the minister give us a sense of how the various parts of Operation Podium came together to secure the games so successfully?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for Medicine Hat for his very generous and informed comments and, particularly as an Albertan, his reference to British Columbia.

As he suggested and as I said earlier, the military was part of an interoperational exercise that involved a number of different departments. Over 4,000 members of the Canadian Forces were set up at various venues and kept a very low profile. Their main role was in support of the RCMP, and also municipal police who were there and various agencies who were working together to meet the security requirements of the Olympic Games.

Canadian Forces have very unique capabilities, which he also referenced. Those capabilities included a maritime component which incorporated the naval personnel from both coasts and of 24 naval reserve divisions. The navy conducted maritime surveillance, port security, dive operations and underwater sweeps. One Halifax class frigate, two Kingston class maritime coastal defence vessels, three Orca class patrol vessels, which are wonderful little ships, and many rigid-hulled inflatable vessels were part of the operation. We had land components, air components, Griffons, Sea Kings, as well as Hornets in the air. All of this was overseen as a Joint Task Force support element, regular and reserve force.

Due to the close proximity of the U.S. border, we worked with our American partners as well.

It was a very successful Olympic Games in no small part because of the important security provided by the men and women in uniform. Many people who took part in that operation left with a great sense of pride. And I would ask where were you when Sidney scored?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Chair, as Canadians, we owe our men and women in uniform a great deal. The sacrifices they make on a daily basis help keep Canada safe and secure. Indeed, I think I speak for everyone in this House when I say that people are the Canadian Forces' most precious resource. It is therefore vital that we do everything we can to support our military personnel. It is particularly important to formally recognize their sacrifices and achievements.

Would the minister please tell us about some of the government's recent initiatives to ensure our courageous sailors, soldiers, airmen and airwomen get the recognition they so richly deserve?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley comes from a part of the world that I am familiar with and which also was the constituency held by a previous defence minister, Robert Coates.

His question is an extremely important one in terms of what we are doing to support the men and women in uniform and their families.

We continue to make investments in that regard, with respect to pay and benefits, with respect to the treatment of the ill and injured, and also in terms of tangible recognition through various awards and medals. For example, we recently announced changes to the South-West Asia Service Medal, the General Campaign Star and the General Service Medal. One of the primary objectives of these changes is to recognize those who serve on multiple rotations and allow the Government of Canada to acknowledge the individual experience of men and women who deploy on operations with the recognition they so richly deserve.

This being the 100th anniversary of the navy, we made a number of changes to the Canadian naval uniform, as well as the Sea Service Insignia, which also is intended to recognize the uniqueness of maritime service.

We will continue to examine ways in which we can properly recognize and acknowledge men and women in uniform through tangible and, in some cases, intangible means. They notice. They see it in restaurants. They see it on the street. Do not walk by a soldier, sailor, airman or airwoman without shaking his or her hand and thanking him or her.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to let you know that the three slots allocated to the Bloc Québécois will be taken by three members of our party and will be used mainly for questions.

My first question for the minister concerns the reopening of the Royal Military College Saint-Jean. The minister came, I believe with the former minister of public works, to announce the partial reopening of the military college, which the Liberal government had closed in 1995. By partial reopening, I mean that the Royal Military College does not have the same status it had when it was closed. Allow me to explain. When the facility was closed, it had university status, but the two ministers came to announce that it would have college status.

Second—and this is something we have repeatedly talked about with the minister—the college used to have a budget of about $25 million, but its current budget is about $12 million. I am sure the minister knows that last weekend, there was the first partial reopening parade of cadets in the preparatory year and first year. I sensed that people were proud, even very proud, to see soldiers on the parade ground again. I think that when we talk about pride, there are no half measures. The college needs to regain its former pride with full status as a university military college and with its former budget.

Moreover, I am told, and perhaps the minister can confirm this, that work is about to start in Kingston. Space will be needed for the soldiers, and Saint-Jean might provide that space. Many senior military people also say that the time has come to reopen the military college. I would add that the number of francophone officer cadets in the Canadian Forces has peaked and is declining.

My question for the minister is this: is it not time to reopen the military college with full university status and with its former budget?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, I extend special thanks to my dear colleague for asking this question. I realize that he has a great interest in this issue. I have had the pleasure of attending convocation ceremonies with him in the past.

It is a question of needs and capacity. As my colleague knows, Canadian Forces recruitment is on the upswing at this time.

We have another facility which the member has referenced, the Royal Military College, which also has language training. In both institutions we have a great history and, as he has indicated, a tremendous amount of pride, pride of participant and family, and the pride within the Canadian Forces broadly. There are many graduates from both institutions, as was the case with Royal Roads.

With respect to the university status, Royal Military College Saint-Jean was in fact reopened by the Conservative government in 2007, something of which we are very proud. In fact, it has seen enrolment grow. It has enhanced our capabilities, without a doubt. Saint-Jean also delivers two main fully bilingual programs for officer cadets, including a two-year Quebec CEGEP program that greatly enhances our capability.

The department is very much aware of the interest to the province of Quebec and many of those who live in the area of Saint-Jean to have that capability expanded. We are not ruling anything out is the short answer.

The reality is that we have the capability right now with the service provided by both of these formidable institutions, RMC Saint-Jean and RMC Kingston. As part of our commitment to expanding the Canadian Forces, we have made a number of important investments when it comes to the area of official languages, not just at these two institutions but across the Canadian Forces more broadly. Offering college and university level courses at both RMC Saint-Jean and RMC Kingston contributes to our ability to offer training to our personnel in the language of their choice.

We will continue to make those decisions based on all of the information, but most importantly, based on the need, based on the capability and based on budget. Those are considerations that I know the hon. member would agree with.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to move on to another topic, fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft. As the hon. minister knows, we have been waiting for several years for a call for tenders on this kind of aircraft. Although the aircraft are operated by the military, the service is offered to all Canadians and Quebeckers. Also, I think this is the only service provided to Canadians and Quebeckers when they are in situations of serious distress. I would like to know where this matter stands.

We have seen one delay after another and I believe this is a $3 billion program. This money has already been set aside, waiting for a decision on how to proceed. I know there was a bit of a conflict between the minister and his colleague from Industry Canada—perhaps the minister could tell us about that—which led the government to ask the National Research Council of Canada to do an independent study.

Once again, the government seems to want to keep this study under wraps. It says it is not confidential, but neither is it public. Besides, some journalists already have copies of it. As members, we went to a lot of trouble regarding censored documents. Now we cannot understand why the government does not want to give us a document that we have asked for.

Does the minister know about this study? Does he plan to provide it to the Standing Committee on National Defence, which will use it to determine its position on search and rescue activities and on its study on the Arctic? It is an important aspect of the study we are conducting on Arctic sovereignty.

Can the minister provide us with that study? Are we seeing these delays as a result of the conflict or misunderstanding he is having with his colleague from Industry Canada?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, first, there is no conflict or battle between me and another minister. As far as the report is concerned, knowing the Bloc members as I do, they always deal with things in both official languages. Accordingly, this report needs to be translated. The answer is yes, we intend to produce this report in both official languages.

As soon as the translation is done, we will ensure that it is made available to him.

With respect to our fixed wing search and rescue project, this is very much a priority within the Canada first defence strategy. It is very much a priority of this government. We fully intend to proceed with this project post haste.

It does have a long history. We have received a great deal of information from various sources. In fact the National Research Council report the member referred to allowed for an independent view and independent input from a number of sources giving us a statement of requirement.

Therefore, we will take this report and are reviewing its findings in our department and in other departments, including the industry department and public works. We are completing a review that will allow us to make a very informed decision.

I know that industry itself anxiously awaits the opportunity to embark upon a process that will allow it to demonstrate to the Government of Canada that it can meet our needs.

Those needs of course are great. We have a country that is enormous. When it comes to the stress and strain on our SAR techs, they have perhaps one of the most difficult jobs in the Canadian Forces. They are like Olympians in terms of their regimented training. Their daily heroics should never go unnoticed. They are covering a country like ours that has over 200,000 kilometres of coastline. There are 35,000 kilometres of coastline in a country like France.

Our country is massive in size. Our weather systems are challenging; our geography is also challenging. Those SAR techs need the best equipment possible. We are going to provide it to them, but we are going to do it through a transparent and inclusive process. We now have the path forward. We have the information required and we going to proceed in a way that will see us purchase new fixed wing aircraft in the very near future.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, on the same subject, can the minister confirm whether, based on current specifications, the Air Force prefers the Alenia? Does the minister share the same vision as the generals of the Air Force? Is that not the problem?

When does he intend to issue a fair, equitable and transparent call for tenders? Will it be soon? Does he have a preference among the range of equipment currently being considered in this military contract?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, of course I have a preference. I want to see the best aircraft at the best price with the best industrial benefits, as do the air force, the chief of the defence staff and the deputy minister. We all want to see those SAR techs that I referred to earlier with the best possible equipment to help them save lives. They save 12,000 lives annually on average. That is the rigour. That is the expectation in this massive country.

They need specialized equipment. We are currently operating a fleet of Buffalo aircraft that are well maintained and capable of doing the job, but they are aging and they need to be replaced, not unlike our Sea Kings. But we supplement them with Hercules aircraft. We also have Cormorants, and we continue to provide an incredible service because of that dedicated professionalism of our SAR techs.

We are gathering all the information from numerous sources, both independent ones and within the departments, to make the best informed decision on the type of aircraft that meets the needs of our SAR techs and our air force.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to address the issue of industrial defence policy. In my opinion, we are entitled to have a clearer position. I always give the same example of the aerospace industry. My first question is for the minister. It is very short.

In addition to being the Minister of National Defence, is the minister still responsible for the economic diversification of the Atlantic provinces?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I just want to correct myself. I misspoke and said 12,000 lives. Of course, I meant 1,200. That figure accumulates greatly when one considers how long our SAR techs have been performing this incredible service.

With respect to the CADSI consultation, I and other ministers had the opportunity recently to meet with the CADSI leadership. We had a chance at that point to discuss some of the recommendations they had made in their report. We will continue to consult with them and with industry to get their feedback to see how we can improve procurement and streamline the process.

CADSI delivered a report called “Canada's Defence Industry: A Vital Partner Supporting Canada's Economic and National Interests”. It does provide valuable feedback. It does provide us with the type of information that we need.

Thus ministers and departments are working closely with each other, with industry, and with the Canadian Forces directly and the Defence Industry Advisory Council, all of whom want to see the best equipment procured to the maximum benefit to taxpayers, but, of course, also to the maximum utility of the men and women in uniform.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like the minister to explain to me why Quebec is not getting its fair share of all the military aerospace contracts we see before us when 55% of the Canadian aerospace industry is in Quebec. For the C-17s, Quebec has only 30% of the contracts while Ontario has 20%, the west has 20% and Atlantic Canada has 7%. That is far from the critical mass of Quebec's aerospace industry. The same goes for the Chinook contracts that, so far, have brought $127 million to Atlantic Canada, $127 million to Quebec and $234 million to Ontario.

Are the two ministers from Ontario, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of National Defence, not helping themselves at the expense of Quebec, which has to settle for such a small sum?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, the answer is no. It is a matter of competition and abilities.

Clearly, what we want to see is industrial regional benefits felt across the country, but it very much has to do with each contract. For example, a contract was awarded very recently to the province of Quebec with respect to flight simulators. Whether it is shipbuilding, the aerospace industry or our land combat vehicles, it very much depends on the competition that is out there.

We do not measure to a nicety each and every contract. We look at the longer term. We look at the ability to provide the best protective, capable equipment for the Canadian Forces. There are industrial regional benefits that factor into those decisions, but I do not know where the member opposite is getting these figures.

What I can tell him is that we have a fair, open, inclusive and competitive bidding process that very much gives Quebec the opportunity, like other provinces, to present its case and to make a bid. At the end of the day, we want to wind up with the best and most capable equipment.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

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?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, first, I want to thank my friend for his questions, his attendance here and his ongoing interest in the Canadian Forces. In particular, of course, I know he takes great pride in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment. I know he attended the Beaumont-Hamel memorial. He and I have discussed having an appropriate designation or monument built at Gallipoli to also honour our soldiers from the Royal Newfoundland Regiment and others who gave their lives there.

The member's question is about extending back a particular award that was designated in this instance for the Afghanistan mission, and perhaps applying it to other peacekeeping missions, as he referred to them. The short answer is that it not entirely within the purview of the Department of National Defence, and this is not a bureaucratic answer on my part. This is simply to say that awards and recognition medals are done at Rideau Hall, with the overall decision being made in consultation with, but ultimately by, the Governor General.

The member's suggestion that we would extend it further back in time would go against previous practice, which is normally to go back five years. In this instance, we already went outside that time limit, because of the length of the Afghanistan mission, which as we know goes back to 2001.

With regard to that, we always want to recognize the valour, the sacrifice, the contribution of those who served. We attempt to do so appropriately. There have been rare exceptions where we have revisited issues. I know that another contentious one that we have examined is bomber command where, again, we are looking at going back a significant period of time in that case.

These are very sensitive issues, of course, for families and those who sacrificed greatly. We always want to honour them. We always want to look for ways to do so appropriately, and so I know that those involved in this discussion will take his question to heart.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

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?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I do not want to belabour the point, but it is in fact a chancellery and it does have input from a number of sources. He is factually incorrect to suggest that it is solely the purview of the Department of National Defence that makes these decisions around medals.

With respect to his question, the all-up costs for the mission are well-known. They have been published. They have been discussed, even in this chamber. The answer is $9.4 billion. That is of course incremental costs. That is the expense that would not have incurred but for the Afghanistan mission. That is in addition to the regular budget that is allotted for the Department of National Defence.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

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

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, that is until the end of the mission.