Bill Graham

[National Defence, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rose in the House on Friday and on Thursday to respond to exactly the same convoluted accusation.

The fact of the matter is, every single military organization in the world today is going through a process of evaluating what equipment it has, what personnel it has, what needs to be done to change to meet new strategies.

We are no different. This government will insist that we choose the right priorities. We will do that through our defence review. I am confident the military will come out of this enriched, both by increasing what we get and by getting rid of things we should not maintain.

[National Defence, October 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly inform the hon. member that I am standing behind my comment. It was appropriate in the circumstances.

The Prime Minister has said that an inquiry is taking place around all the circumstances about the Chicoutimi putting to sea.

I told the House that the Chicoutimi had had extensive trials and it was the judgment of the navy that it was fit to make the voyage back to Canada and that it was seaworthy for that purpose. That is what the navy has told us. That is the correct position in respect of the Chicoutimi 's voyage to Canada.

[National Defence, October 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows full well, an investigation is being carried out by navy experts. It is in the navy's interest to determine the problem in order to rectify it. Our navy carried out the acquisition in a very responsible manner, and I am confident that it will act in the same manner during its investigation. Let us allow this investigation to unfold without us MPs jumping to irresponsible conclusions.

[National Defence, October 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we do accept responsibility for our decisions and that is why we negotiated a price for the submarines. The hon. member says we undercut the amount of money available for them. We negotiated a price that was less than the asking price and then we reinvested substantial new moneys on top of that to make sure they were fit to sail.

That is what the government is doing. That is what the government is responsible for. The government did that in conjunction with the navy. We worked with the navy. This is not hiding behind the navy. This is relying on the professionalism, the expertise, of a superb group of men and I continue to remain confident in their judgment.

[National Defence, October 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we agreed to acquire the submarine precisely because the navy was there during the very trials that the hon. member refers to. They were familiar with the problems and worked their way through them.

The submarine has been late leaving Scotland for the very reason that our navy personnel spent time making sure that the sub was safe for ocean passage before it left port. That is why they took the extra time and why they did what they did. I am confident that they were professionally capable of doing that. That is exactly what we asked them to do, and that is what they have delivered for the good of the navy and for the good of the country.

[National Defence, October 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the military itself is looking for ways in which it can rationalize, make itself efficient and deal with modern threats. We have a military that invested in many things, tanks and other issues, which we have decided do not correspond to what we need for a future modern military. Every other country is going through the same thing.

It would be unwise and even foolish to say that some things will not be cut. Some things may be cut but overall the military will be reinvested in and will be a better military, a more efficient and modernized military, and that is what we need.

[National Defence, October 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous for the hon. member to say that these decisions have been made. It is outrageous to make misleading comments in the House of Commons about what the government is doing. The government is reinvesting in our military. No decision has been made whatsoever about the cuts to which the hon. member has made reference.

Of course the government is discussing what efficiencies we should make through our whole government and how we should deal with it, and I can promise the government, the House and the public that our department will cooperate in that, but the overall record is that we are reinvesting in our military heavily.

[National Defence, October 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I square it with the fact that the government has invested. Since 1999 we have committed $10 billion of new money to the military. We have committed $7 billion in new equipment. We are now committed, and I am confident we will get money for the 5,000 additional troops that the government promised in the election campaign and which we will deal with in the review that we are going to take to the House of Commons.

We are reinvesting in the military. We are also a part of a government that is committed to fiscal responsibility. We will work together with our partners in governments to ensure this department is properly financed and works properly.

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, October 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the helpful suggestions in her speech. This illustrates, in my view, one of the important dimensions of what we are trying to do here, which is to develop collaboration among all levels of government in order to face emergencies. Every jurisdiction has its own responsibilities and one of the most important things we have to do in Canada is bring those jurisdictions together.

However, I hope that the hon. member did not intend to be alarmist in her comments. She is right to say we have to be more vigilant, but I hope she will also agree that, as the national security advisor said in his speech the other day, we have to recognize the nature of the dangers. The government is doing that. We have invested some $7 billion more in issues.

In fact, as members know, Mr. Ridge was here in the last two days talking with the Deputy Prime Minister about that element of our security in working with the United States. My own department has put substantial resources into this as a result of the national security policy. We have now under Norad a joint planning committee which is designed to deal with cross-border issues.

I hope that all hon. members, particularly the hon. member, who clearly has a sense from her own community of what needs to be done, will work with the government and work with all of us in making sure of it, particularly, if I may suggest to the hon. member, at this level of why we need to coordinate and have cooperation from all levels of government. This needs a coordinated approach from municipalities and provinces as well as the federal government.

[National Defence, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, these submarines have not been dry docked. The navy is concerned, first and foremost, with the safety of the personnel serving on all of our ships.

Based on what the inquiry has heard, the chief of the maritime staff has taken a very early precautionary move to ensure that the submarines are in perfect condition to sail.

I support that. I hope that all members of the House will support it. I also hope that they will not draw unwarranted and unreasonable political solutions or questions from those answers.