David Pratt

[Ballistic Missile Defence, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I think what we have in the corner here is what my friends in the military would describe as a target rich environment from the standpoint of arguments.

I am just flabbergasted by what the hon. member said in terms of this $1 trillion figure. I do not know where the mathematicians are in the NDP, but the current spending of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency is approximately $9 billion per year. At that rate of spending, it would take over a century to spend $1 trillion.

The hon. member should know as well, and should appreciate the fact, that if the NDP wants to take the high moral ground on this issue, if that is what the NDP members are seeking to do, then they owe the people of Canada the truth on this issue in terms of giving them the straight facts without trying to embellish this, without trying to gild the lily as far as the arguments go.

On the basis of the facts, so many of the arguments that the NDP members have just do not stand up.

I would like the hon. member to respond to that issue, but I would also like to have her respond on the issue of the threat that exists, because implicit in the NDP's position is the fact that there is no threat. But the facts are--and we know what the facts are--that there are countries out there like North Korea. They pay absolutely no regard to human rights. They have starved their own people for the sake of a weapons program. The North Koreans actually lowered the height requirement for soldiers in their army because they are so undernourished. The people of Korea are so undernourished that they just have not grown.

We have been prepared to launch missiles across the Sea of Japan; that was five or six years ago. Is the NDP saying that there is absolutely no threat out there, that we need not concern ourselves with the fact that there are countries that are ready, willing and potentially able to launch ballistic missiles directed at free democratic countries like Canada and the United States or even South Korea and Japan?

[Ballistic Missile Defence, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my good friend and colleague from the Bloc Quebecois a few questions on this issue.

He made the point that he wanted to distinguish himself as a sovereignist. I must say that being a sovereignist, as far as I am aware, does not allow someone to violate the laws of logic or to be inconsistent from one day to the next.

The issue that the member raised yesterday in the House during question period was one that was of great interest to me. He asked me a question in relation to a contract for $700,000 that the Department of National Defence was sponsoring in connection with the high frequency surface wave radar that is produced by one of Canada's defence companies.

This radar is able to see over the horizon and extends to a range of about 320 kilometres. It is normally used for the purpose of tracking ships and low flying planes, as well as ice floes and icebergs and that sort of thing, but it could potentially be used for detecting cruise missiles.

The member opposite was very categorical in asking why we were potentially participating in these missile detection trials. By the way, we have not made a decision to participate in these missile detection trials, formally in any event.

However he was very critical of the testing of radar systems for cruise missiles and yet tonight we hear him say that he has more concerns about cruise missiles launched from cargo vessels than he does about ballistic missiles.

I would suggest to the hon. member, and maybe he could respond to this, that he be a bit more consistent in terms of his arguments. He cannot say on one day that he is not concerned about cruise missiles and on the next day suggest that they present more of a threat than ballistic missiles.

[National Defence, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, let us go back to the basics on this. Canada has been involved jointly with the United States in terms of the defence of North America for 60 or more years. We accept our responsibilities as far as protecting Canadians.

The discussions in which we are involved with the United States right now are intended to obtain more information from the U.S. with respect to what precisely is contemplated in terms of this system. Once we get that information, we will make a decision consistent with Canadian values and Canadian interests.

[National Defence, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member got the figure of $600 million or $700 million. That is clearly not what is being proposed here.

As I indicated earlier, what is being proposed is to test a system that we have here in Canada, the high frequency surface wave radar system, that is going to be operational in August. We look forward to understanding all of its capabilities, but with particular emphasis on this business of cruise missile defence.

[National Defence, February 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize once again that the government has made no decision on the issue of ballistic missile defence. The contract that was issued by Defence Research and Development Canada was intended to test high frequency surface wave radar. It was intended to participate in these missile detection trials with a particular emphasis on cruise missile detection. The nature of this radar is such that it looks over the horizon and does not look up.

I would urge the hon. member not to jump to conclusions.

[National Defence, November 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, about a year ago the Minister of National Defence announced the cancellation of the supply chain project. The decision at the time was to go with an in-house solution called the materiel acquisition and support optimization project.

Could the Minister of National Defence give the House an update on this important project.

[Remembrance Day, November 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, next week on November 11, Canadians will be taking time out to remember the men and women in uniform who for well over a century now have steadfastly stood on guard for their nation and the world in times of peace and in times of war. They will also remember the over 100,000 Canadians who paid the ultimate price.

The call to remembrance was made just that much sharper in recent weeks with the tragic loss of two of our finest in Afghanistan. Their sacrifice was a stark reminder of the risks faced by our brave young men and women in uniform.

Even though the business of maintaining peace and security can be perilous, our Canadian Forces personnel are superb ambassadors for Canada and carry out their duties with courage, dignity and the utmost in professionalism. All Canadians remain so very grateful and proud of the service and sacrifice of the members of the Canadian Forces.

[Committees of the House, November 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) your committee, as a result of the briefing received from the National Defence and Canadian Forces ombudsman concerning his report, “Unfair Deductions From SISIP Payments to Former CF Members”, dated October 30, 2003, unanimously adopted a motion that urges the defence minister and government to accept this report and enact the recommendations forthwith.

[Canadian Forces, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Canadian Forces communications and electronics branch.

From its humble beginnings, the signal corps, as it used to be known, has emerged as a leader in the development and use of new technologies that have enhanced the communications and operational capability of the Canadian Forces.

Past and present members of the branch have been hard at work this year organizing an impressive array of events to mark their centennial. This August in Kingston, the branch's home station, a reunion celebration was held. The branch's Colonel-in-Chief, the Princess Royal, honoured participants with her attendance over the celebration weekend.

On behalf of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands I wish to congratulate the centennial 2003 organizing committee and all who played a part in making the 100th anniversary celebrations such a solid success.

Canadians are very proud of the accomplishments of the C and E branch and wish them the very best for the future.

[Committees of the House, October 10th, 2003]

The motion reads as follows:

That the committee supports the decision of Veterans Affairs Canada to extend from one year to a lifetime the Veterans Independence Program (VIP) benefits provided to surviving spouses of Veterans who were in receipt of such benefits at the time of their death. However, the members of the committee unanimously agreed that the Government should take all possible means to provide lifetime VIP benefits to all qualified surviving spouses, of Veterans receiving such benefits at the time of their death, not just to those now eligible for such benefits following the amendments made in June 2003 to the Veterans Health Care Regulations.