House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 52% of the vote.
National Defence October 14th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we also heard in the House from that party about a fire that never occurred on the Corner Brook .
That party is busy inventing all sorts of problems with the submarines, and playing political football instead of working with us to make the navy safe and protect our coast, which the government and the navy will do.
National Defence October 14th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the chief of the maritime staff and many of the submariners I had the opportunity to meet with yesterday are convinced of the quality of these submarines. They want to maintain them and be able to use them in the defence of our country.
I can assure all members of the House that the government will back the navy. We support the navy. We support its efforts to make these subs safe and we will always give it the resources necessary to make them safe.
National Defence October 14th, 2004
Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. The premise in the question is right there. We put in an extra $85 million to ensure that they were right for the navy. That is exactly what we did.
When we have to invest, we invest. That is exactly what we are doing. I think the hon. member's question absolutely proves the point.
National Defence October 14th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the government certainly did and the navy certainly did. The navy knew very well that it was sailing in these submarines and wanted them to be absolutely safe.
That is why the captain of the Chicoutimi testified the other day that the ship was ready to sail and seaworthy when it put out to sea. The navy does not risk the lives of its own men.
National Defence October 8th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to please not go ballistic over this question.
Members have had an opportunity of debating the issue on several occasions in the House and the hon. member was there. I have shared my debating points with him. There are members in our caucus who have different points of view. The Prime Minister has encouraged an open debate over what is an issue of great importance.
The hon. member, also being a very experienced member of the House, knows full well that the ratification of international treaties is and must remain a prerogative of the government.
National Defence October 8th, 2004
Mr. Speaker,--
National Defence October 8th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the investigation concerning HMCS Chicoutimi will have an impact on the other submarines. The Canadian Forces conduct investigations into any incident that occurs. In due course, they will take corrective action which will apply fleet-wide, to all the equipment involved.
That is how it should be. The security of our personnel is the primary concern of our military leaders, and that will not change.
National Defence October 8th, 2004
Naturally, Mr. Speaker, everything having to do with these submarines was reviewed by the navy before recommending their purchase. It was well known that these were submarines already in service in Great Britain, and we wanted to purchase them because it was a good thing to do at the time.
So, this was done based on recommendations by the navy, which was perfectly aware of all aspects of these submarines, from every point of view.
National Defence October 8th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the captain of the Chicoutimi himself raised security concerns prior to the ship leaving. The House can be assured that the reason he did that was that he assured himself that those security concerns were answered before his ship left port. That is why they are raised by these competent naval personnel.
National Defence October 8th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak to any specific equipment on board the Chicoutimi . I can tell the hon. member that like himself I have visited the HMCS Windsor and I have seen the oxygen producing equipment to which he is referring to on that ship.
As I said earlier, the captain of this ship and the naval command were concerned about all the security aspects of the ship and would not have allowed it to put to sea if they had not been satisfied that all aspects of the equipment on the ship were secure and the personnel were in the best possible position in the security of this ship before it put to sea.