Bill Graham

[National Defence, October 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of that question is absolute nonsense. The United States navy partners with lots of other countries. It not only deals with Sweden, it deals with many of our NATO allies.

Fortunately I can say that the Canadian navy has one of the best records of working with the United States navy. In fact, it has commanded U.S. navy ships in the Persian Gulf.

We have an unparalleled record of working with the American navy and we will continue to do so. We welcome other countries to work with us both together.

[National Defence, October 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House and the hon. member that I am not hiding behind the navy when I tell him I have discussed these matters with the navy. It may surprise the hon. member to know it is actually the navy that sails these ships. I know that is a surprise to him.

The navy has told me that it is constantly concerned with the security of its ships and the security of its personnel. It has taken precautions. The navy changes equipment when it has to be changed. The navy has moved when it has had to move and will continue to do so. The navy's primary preoccupation is for the safety of its ships, its fleet and its men. I will continue to support it.

[National Defence, October 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, ministers of the government, particularly defence ministers, take the advice of professionals.

I am proud of the fact that when I said the navy wanted those submarines, we supported the navy in getting those submarines. That is exactly what we should be doing. I do not make strategic decisions for the military. I take its advice. I am proud of that as the defence minister. I hope that the House will support me when I act on behalf of our services when they need our support.

[Communications Security Establishment, October 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the House would appreciate, and I do not think the Canadian public would appreciate a former chief justice of Canada being attributed the title of being a powerless watchdog.

I have met with Mr. Justice Antonio Lamer. He has eight people working with him constantly watching over CSE to make sure that it respects the law. I meet regularly with the director of CSE. I can assure the House CSE is watched. They are people with a culture of obeying the laws of Canada and recognizing privacy concerns. They operate within the law and they protect Canadians in that optic.

[National Defence, October 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I think in the House around issues of this nature we owe it to each other to be forthright. When I used the term “setback”, the question I was asked was if this was a setback to the program. I never minimized the seriousness of what took place on board. The navy responded with great seriousness. The member can read my transcript. I will read it into the House record if he wants. I made it very clear that we were treating this very seriously.

What we have to do is that we clearly have to make sure we get accurate information and convey it to the public. That was done day after day in the context of a difficult storm at sea where we were all doing our best job to report to the--

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House wants to achieve a balance between our armed forces, their role in the world and the protection of Canada. I am sure that the hon. member for Saint-Jean agrees with me that, today, the role of peacekeepers is no longer what it was 20 years ago, when our troops were in Cyprus, on the Golan Heights, or elsewhere. The situation then was stable.

Today, peacekeepers need to have the capability to fight, otherwise they cannot maintain peace. It is very important that all members of the House realize that. Contrary to what the member for Saint-Jean suggested, our point of view on this issue is not secret; rather, it is very open and transparent. We will submit it to the committee. The committee will be its own master. We will do all that. However, we should all recognize that we are now living in a much more dangerous world and we need new means to protect ourselves and uphold our values abroad.

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Yukon is extremely knowledgeable about the north, being a member from there. I have had the opportunity to visit him in his constituency. It is his concern for the issues of the north that obviously make him such a great member of Parliament.

I can assure him that I personally as well as others will work with him as we address these complicated issues.

As minister of foreign affairs I had the opportunity to go to meetings of the Arctic Council. I met with my American, Russian, Finnish, Norwegian and other counterparts. We were all looking at ways to make sure that we can deal with the emerging issues of the Arctic, which clearly are going to be one of the most important changing issues in our global environment. I can assure the hon. member that the Canadian military will be playing its part.

Exercise Narwahl, which we just finished, was the beginning of a set of measures which will make sure that we are not only present there and cooperating with civilian responders, but that we will be there in the future as these issues unfold.

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, of course we recognize that. That is exactly why the government came out in support of the joint support checks the Prime Minister spoke of when he was in Halifax. He specifically said we need the type of modern equipment that is focused on that, not aircraft carriers. That is what we need and we are focused on that. We will make sure we get the best equipment for our forces, whether it is our maritime forces or our land forces.

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let me make this clear. Election campaigns tend to be extremely partisan affairs. What I suggested to the House in my speech today was that for the good of the future of our forces and for what we are trying to achieve, what is needed here is a dispassionate review of the policies that we need to put into place, the equipment and the training that our forces need in order to do their job in defending North America and in projecting Canada's values abroad. That is what we are trying to do and I ask the hon. member to do that.

Many issues were discussed during the campaign. My recollection is that a suggestion came from the other side of the floor about purchasing an aircraft carrier. That seemed to us to be a real folly. It seemed to be the type of expense on equipment that was totally unjustified for the needs of a modern army that has to face asymmetric threats of terrorism in a different world situation. Let us not do that. That is not where we are going. It was not a good idea and we still reject it.

If the member wants to argue about the past and the election, I would be happy to argue about the election. However I would prefer to talk about what we can do to help our forces face the future. We need to do that in the House, not drag up the election.

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly subscribe to the point raised by the hon. member from Windsor, that the quality of life of the members of our armed services, here in Canada and when they are serving abroad, must be an important preoccupation of the government.

The member will recall in recent times that the defence committee specifically did a study and travelled across the country. Previous defence ministers addressed the issue of salary and other issues.

Do we continue to have concerns? Of course we have concerns. Will we continue to try to bring up the standards? Of course we will continue to bring up those standards. The department and the military leadership itself are determined that first comes the security of our forces and then comes their quality of life. We recognize that. We will work on these issues to ensure that they have the quality of life they need and deserve as they serve our country.