House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 52% of the vote.
National Defence October 8th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I could not speak to a specific system on board the ship. All I can tell the hon. member is what I said earlier. The captain of the ship, the experts of the naval staff and the British suppliers went through every piece of equipment on the ship on sea trials and on land. They worked with it and examined it minutely. And, no, any decision to put to sea was only made after it was confirmed that this ship was seaworthy and ready to go to sea.
National Defence October 8th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, in the first case, the premise of the question ignores entirely that since the Prime Minister came into office, he has committed to spending some $7 billion on improving the equipment to our armed services, updating some of the best equipment we could possibly have.
In its electoral platform, this party agreed for the first time that we are going to increase our forces by 5,000 regulars and 3,000 reservists, giving us greater capacity. In so far as whether these submarine fleets are put to sea, I rest my case and put my faith in the maritime command who are the professionals that make these decisions.
National Defence October 8th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there have been problems with these submarines, but we have always been advised by the naval staff that they are capable of managing these problems and that these were the best submarines they could get for the purposes they wanted them. We needed submarines. These are therefore what the navy wanted. This is what the navy is pursuing to make work for the capacity of our armed services.
If the defence committee or any other committee of the House chooses to investigate all circumstances around the purchases of these submarines, of course the government will cooperate completely with parliamentary committees, as we always do.
National Defence October 8th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, what was done, as the chief of maritime staff has told me, was that the ship was put through extremely rigorous tests in predeparture sea trials, both within the vicinity of the harbour and then longer trials where everything was checked, both with the British suppliers and with the naval staff on board.
This ship would not have left port if it had not been determined by a competent captain and by superior officers that it was fit to make the traverse across the Atlantic. It never would have left port in the first place if it had not been considered fit.
National Defence October 7th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, this is precisely why, this morning, I asked the head of navy what measures they were taking. He assured me that the other three submarines are operational. Of course, the navy, the air force and the army always try to figure out the causes of every accident, to decide what to do with our equipment. I trust their professionalism. They will find the causes of the accident and we will make sure that it does not happen again.
National Defence October 7th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that all the members of this House are concerned about the fate of our brave submariners aboard the HMSC Chicoutimi . I can assure the House that these people are professionals. The British navy is there to help. Our own navy has dispatched another ship to the scene.
I can assure the House that every possible measure has been taken. I hope to soon be able to report that these brave men have made it back safely and that we can determine the causes of this serious accident.
National Defence October 7th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the government to support our maritime command and our competent naval officers in the exercise of their functions. We have done that.
I have perfect confidence that we have supported them. I have perfect confidence in their capacity to make the operational decisions that our navy needs to make and I will continue to support them. That is what the government has always done.
National Defence October 7th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I will certainly agree with the hon. member that there have been problems in the commissioning of these subs and Canadianizing them to the way in which they can fit into our navy. We all know what those are, but I can assure the member these have not been undue risks.
I have been assured by maritime command that these are risks that exist in the normal process of bringing these ships up to speed. They are still in the process of being properly commissioned.
I want to assure members of the House that the ships in question are being run by our naval professional staff under great circumstances and they are going to be of great service to our navy.
National Defence October 7th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is a great strategy on behalf of the hon. member to ask questions for which there is no answer so then he can say that he is not getting a serious answer.
The hon. member knows well enough that the way in which this system works is the military is in charge of these inquiries. They are the professionals who are responsible. The military will determine the inquiry. The navy will do a professional inquiry. When the facts are known, those facts will be made available to the House. I do hope that the Leader of the Opposition does not think the House is qualified to do that inquiry. I leave it for the professionals in our maritime command.
National Defence October 7th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, what I can assure the House is that the maritime command, and in fact all of our military personnel, ensure how equipment works because security is the most important concern for their men. I can assure members of the House that the Canadian navy took all the precautions and professional measures necessary to determine the seaworthiness of this ship before it set to sea. I have had assurance from the chief of the maritime command that all necessary precautions were taken about the security of the ship before it set to sea. That is the procedure in our navy.