House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 52% of the vote.
National Defence November 21st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, all the members of the House want our Canadian forces to get the equipment they need and to do the work we—in other words, Canadians—are asking them to do.
Our aim in procurement is to optimize Canadian industry. We are working with the Canadian industry on all procurements in order to guarantee participation in the growth of that industry. However, we must, first and foremost, buy what is needed.
National Defence November 21st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right about something. The military of this country does want its government's signature on something that will enable it to get the equipment it needs to do its job.
I ask the hon. members opposite why they are standing in the way and trying to stop, for political reasons, our ability to deliver to our military what it needs to do its job for its country, not for politics.
National Defence November 21st, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member prefaced his question by saying that I will be taking it to cabinet this afternoon.
When cabinet approves it, maybe the hon. member will then be in a position to either criticize it or comment on it. However, until it has been brought out by cabinet, I respectfully request the hon. member to wait and see what the proposal is.
I can assure the hon. member and members of the House that the proposal will be a performance based requirement and it will call for tenders that will allow ample competition in the bid.
National Defence November 18th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has suggested that go through the service records of some people. By his own colleague's statement, they even admit that over half of those people were either absent without leave or would perhaps have been prosecuted as deserters.
Is the hon. member really suggesting that we should take 14,000 names, determine who should have been prosecuted and who should not? I suggest that would be an unjust way to approach this. We are approaching it by allowing those who feel unjustly treated to come forward. We will rectify the records and work with them to solve it. That is the just and Canadian way to deal with this issue.
National Defence November 18th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member phrased his question the way he did because he clearly indicated that this is a complicated issue. The fact is that of those who were deemed not to have served included those who had gone AWOL, those who had deserted and those who had deliberately chosen not to be engaged.
Unfortunately, others, for personal reasons or bureaucratic reasons, did not file the necessary papers. What the order in council of the day sought to do was to turn a page on the issue.
There are those who believe they were unjustly treated. The way to deal with this injustice is to let them apply and we will deal with it on a case by case basis, and we will rectify the injustice.
Veterans Affairs November 18th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, we do take very seriously both the committee work that was done last night and the recommendations, and we will be looking at these.
The evidence last night at the committee demonstrated precisely the amplitude and the nature of the complexity of this task, which is why we put Dr. Furlong in place to do a study. This gentleman has impeccable credentials. He has had both political and medical experience. I think we should allow him to deal with this and work with it so we can get the right answer, both for the victims and the Canadian public.
National Defence November 16th, 2005
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member recognizes that the appointment of Dr. Dennis Furlong is an important step in the right direction about getting to an understanding of the agent orange issue.
This coordinator was selected based on his experience and credentials. He is a former health minister of the New Brunswick government. He knows how government works and how important this issue is to Canadians and people from the Gagetown area. I am very pleased that he is willing to take on this responsibility and we look forward to working with him to solve this important issue.
Canada's military mission in Afghanistan November 15th, 2005
Mr. Chair, if I could help the House, of the supplementary estimates there will be $418 million to fund operational sustainability, equipment, maintenance and infrastructure repairs; $71 million to support force expansion by 8,000 new personnel; $278.3 million to cover costs associated with our operations in Afghanistan; $22 million to cover part of the costs of the Grizzly armoured vehicles in the African mission in Sudan; $322 million to cover the costs of pay and allowance increases for CF members; and $28.6 million to fund the remediation or environmental cleanup of federal contaminated sites.
If the hon. member can find in that list the ships which he says constitute the largest amount of the numbers, I challenge him to do it and would be quite surprised.
Canada's military mission in Afghanistan November 15th, 2005
Mr. Chair, I agree with the hon. member in that I do not think that at this hour of the night we want to get into a debate about too much detail, largely because we do not have all the figures in front of us. I think it would be unfortunate if the hon. member left the impression with the House or with the public that the $1.3 billion additional in the estimates, not $1.8 billion but $1.3 billion, is all about building ships and other matters. It is not. It is about increased salaries for our troops and increased health costs, and there is a considerable amount of that money which will go to this Afghan mission.
The way in which the budgets work, and I think the hon. member should know that, is that when we deploy our troops abroad we always have to come back to the government for the incremental costs of that mission. The Afghan mission will probably cost, to keep 1,000 troops certainly, when we are 1,000 troops abroad, plus the 350, a possible $600 million or more in order to accomplish that. That will all be achieved by supplementary estimates because that will be the incremental costs of the department.
It is not realistic to suggest that it is just $500 million of new money to the department this year. There is a great deal more than that. There is a great deal more than that to make sure that the troops are able to do the job that they are doing in Afghanistan as well in other jobs across Canada. That is the importance of the supplementary estimates. That is why I think it is legitimate for us in the House to consider why we should sit until we can get those supplementary estimates passed for the good of our troops but also for the success of our mission and what we intend to ask our troops to do.
Canada's military mission in Afghanistan November 15th, 2005
Mr. Chair, I think all members of the House would agree that the ability of the international community to support a greater role for women in Afghanistan has been one of the undeniable successes of international intervention there.
The hon. member mentioned the number of women who ran in the recent elections in Afghanistan. I wonder if she would have anything to say about that. I understand that some very significant women were returned to Parliament, including one Afghan woman of Canadian origin who ran in the southern province and who defied many warlords in her determination to obtain a seat. It is her voice and other voices at the political level that will also help advance this cause. I wonder if the hon. member has anything to add on this subject.