Bill Graham

[Veterans Affairs, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I will have to take that under advisement and the veterans affairs minister will get back with an answer in the House next week.

[National Defence, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I answered that question in the House the other day and, judging from today's question, I can only assume that the hon. member left after she asked the question and did not stay to listen to the answer.

As I explained to her, there is a problem. The JTF-2 forces know that their operations are secret. However in order for the Department of Veterans Affairs and ourselves to ensure they receive their appropriate pensions, we must find a way to reserve their right to privacy and the secrecy concerns.

The department is working on it. We have not denied the rightfulness of their claims but we must find a way in which we can do it consistent with the appropriateness of the system. We are finding that--

[National Defence, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, obviously these contracts are extremely important. We want to get it right. That is exactly what we do in the department.

This contract takes time. However, we are negotiating it in good faith with the two parties. We will sign a contract when it is in the best interests of the Government of Canada and the people of Canada to get the best contract we can for Canada.

[National Defence, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the House would want to know that Mr. Kavanagh, who testified before the committee, was a training officer for the Oberon class of submarine, which went out of service 15 years ago.

This is an interesting observation by my critic. However, to be fair, the House should know the training has changed. We now use simulators, the same way airline pilots use simulators. There is a new way of training. One does not get as much sea time as one did before.

However, I can assure the House that when men and women go to sea, they are trained to do the job.

[National Defence, February 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is doing her best to paint this into a huge problem. I went to the JTF-2 base. There is no recruitment problem with them. They are thrilled to be doing the jobs they are doing. They are proud of the jobs they are doing for this country. They will continue doing it. They are great soldiers. They will work with us to solve these problems, but they will not turn it into a silly political football like the hon. member is trying to do.

[National Defence, February 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing we have to recognize is that members of our special forces do an incredible job for this country. I understand there is a specific problem about the secrecy of their missions and the need to fill out certain forms.

I promise the hon. member and all members of the special forces that I will work with them to ensure they are justly and properly treated. They will not be discriminated against because of their great service to this country. We have to reconcile their record with the need to have a system that protects their privacy. We will do that.

[National Defence, February 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the government's position is clear: a debate will take place in the House on all the conditions relating to whether or not to participate in the defence shield program. Hon. members will have the opportunity to debate this issue, as they already have on a number of occasions. But the Prime Minister has always been very clear. Canada will never take part in any plan involving the militarization of space.

[National Defence, February 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is no need to insist on a written guarantee from Mr. Bush. The Prime Minister said that we would not be part of an agreement in which the militarization of space would be sought by either party. Therefore, it is out of the question for us to be a party to such an agreement. The Americans know that this is where we stand. The whole House knows that this is our position. To suggest otherwise is merely to try to distort the issue in an attempt to confuse things.

[National Defence, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we are entering into a contract with Sikorsky, which is a reputable firm with enormous resources. We have every understanding that it will live up to its contract. There is no reason whatsoever to expect that it would not.

We believe we will be acquiring the best helicopter at the best price for the job that it is needed to be done in this circumstance. We will be lucky to have it, and the forces are looking forward to acquiring a superb machine.

[National Defence, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I think all members of the House know very well when the military chooses equipment, it chooses equipment that is appropriate for the task designed.

For the equipment that is needed for our maritime helicopters, we have chosen the best helicopter for the job that is necessary to do. It does not consist of ferrying a president around. It consists of working at sea in a maritime capacity. We have the right helicopter. I am sure the President got the best helicopter for his job. It is not the job we intend to do with ours.