Bill Graham

[National Defence, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is such a ridiculous question. Everyone knows the answer. Indeed, over the past two years, we have had exchanges with British and American troops. We respect our international commitments.

As I also said, we honour our commitment to the UN, NATO and other international institutions. We are pursuing our policy. This is not the same as saying we will be sending troops directly to Iraq. The Prime Minister said we would not do that, and we will not.

[National Defence, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I totally reject this proposal. Canada has always fulfilled with its international obligations. Canada is respected because it meets its international obligations. We are not in Iraq to train Iraqi troops. As the Prime Minister said, we are not going to send troops. However, we will always respect our commitments to the UN, NATO and our allies, as we have done in the past, and as we will continue to do in the future.

[National Defence, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the leader of the Bloc Québécois that we are not, to the best of my knowledge, in Vietnam at this time.

I am not sure that historical parallels of this kind are valid. As everyone in this House is well aware, Canada respects its international commitments with its allies and with such international institutions as the United Nations and NATO. We will continue to respect these commitments, but it does not mean that we are going to send troops to train Iraqi forces in Iraq. That is what the Prime Minister has said.

[National Defence, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, exactly the same question was asked last week. I answered it the same way. We have always had armed forces personnel within other institutions, either military or international. We participate through those institutions. We have a colonel in Iraq under the auspices of the UN.

Do people not want the UN in Iraq or us to help by contributing our expertise to what is being done by the UN or other international bodies such as NATO?

[National Defence, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that Canada has not been asked to make a financial contribution. We will not be accepting missile sites on our soil, something we have made very clear on many occasions before, in case it missed the attention of the opposition.

[National Defence, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we stand on missile defence exactly where the Prime Minister has made it clear to the House on many occasions. We will enter into an agreement with the United States if it is in the interest of Canada, if we ensure that we are not going in any way toward the weaponization of space, and that Canadian security interests and Canada's political interests are guaranteed.

We will not enter into any agreement which is not in our interest. The Prime Minister is committed to that and we will continue along that road.

[National Defence, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the question makes my point entirely. We have replaced the Sea Kings. We are in the process of replacing the Sea Kings. We have committed to getting the helicopters to replace the Sea Kings. It was the first thing I did when I became defence minister.

I think it is better for us to proceed in an intelligent, measured way to get what the armed forces need rather than just trying to play political football with the occasional problem that the opposition members on that side of the House are trying to find.

We are committed to rebuilding our Canadian Forces. We will do that in measured, determined and effective ways.

[National Defence, February 21st, 2005]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. As for being barefoot in the barracks, I think that party has nothing to say about that, given its policies which are totally bare of any content whatsoever in the House. We are all completely bare in the House when it comes to policies from the opposition.

The government is committed to rebuilding our forces. We will rebuild the Canadian Forces. We will rebuild the forces in an intelligent, focused and determined way, not by just jumping to reaction the way the opposition does on every small item that comes to its attention.

[National Defence, February 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as we have spoken in the House before on this issue, it is not possible to predict what will be in the budget. However, if we look at the conduct of the government up until now, it is clear that the Prime Minister is committed to rebuilding our armed forces. We have a new chief of the defence staff who will be transforming and revolutionizing the way in which we approach Canada's role in the world and delivering on that.

I am confident that the finance minister will be giving us the resources this week in the budget. We will have a defence review which clearly lays out an active, proactive Canadian role in defence matters that will help the rest of the world.

[Civil Marriage Act, February 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the leader of the Bloc Québécois on his contention that the religion of some must not become the law of others. This is, without contradiction, the true expression of the freedom we would all like to enjoy in this country. Many religions want to impose their laws on the world. What matters is that, in our society, we are all free to pursue our own religions and values. This is the basis of Canadian society.

I would like to ask the hon. member this. I come from Toronto, which has a strong gay and lesbian community. I believe that this community makes a contribution to our city. I believe that their being free and able to contribute as full fledged citizens helps to enrich Canada. That will strengthen our rights.

Would the hon. member agree that it is the same in Quebec? Our common rights are strengthened when we all enjoy the same rights and live in a society where everyone can contribute to the fullest of their abilities. Does the hon. member not agree with this statement as it relates to Quebec as well as to the rest of Canada?