Denis Coderre

[Canadian Forces, May 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, consider this. The Dinning family, who are upright, honest people, lost a son in Afghanistan and are still deeply mourning their loss. A devoted mother is trying to come to terms with the pain and suffering caused by this tragedy. Yet these people are forced to drive eight hours to come here and put their private life on display, because their honour and integrity is being questioned, thanks to the Minister of National Defence, who also misled the House. Again this week, it appears that everything has been resolved to preserve the honour of the families of our troops.

I call on the Minister of National Defence to accept his responsibilities and immediately step down.

[Afghanistan, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Prime Minister said in Afghanistan.

If there are any doubts about the incompetence of this government, we need only look at the Afghan detainee scandal. There now have been media reports that the government has taken absolutely no steps to verify the claims of abuse and torture that have been raised in this House over the past month. Either nobody knows or nobody cares, and neither one of those options is acceptable.

My question is pretty simple. Why does the Prime Minister not show transparency and accountability when it comes to respecting the Geneva convention? What is he hiding from Canadians?

[Afghanistan, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, there was something cynical in the Prime Minister's diversionary surprise visit last week. Everyone knows why he was in Afghanistan: crisis management and polls. But it gets worse. It seems as though the Prime Minister has two different lines on the status of the combat mission after February 2009, depending on his audience.

At a time when the Dutch are showing transparency and are starting a debate on extending their mission, will the Prime Minister act like a statesman and admit once and for all that his true intention is to have our sons and daughters still fighting after February 2009?

[Points of Order, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, June 2 will be my 10th anniversary as a member of this House. I have always worked hard, passionately and with great determination.

During question period, we ask honest questions. We are now spending $6.1 billion on a mission, and we support our troops, yet we have a minister who says that it costs a certain amount of money, then comes back the next day and says that it costs twice as much, so I think it makes sense to ask about that during question period.

I invoke Standing Order 18. The government whip cast aspersions on my passion and my patriotism by calling me an idiot. He said:

“Tell that to the troops we are supporting, you idiot”.

I would ask the government whip, who often gets carried away, to withdraw his comment.

[National Defence, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought this minister would be an expert when it comes to arms dealing, with his experience in the field, but apparently incompetence knows no bounds when it comes to the Minister of National Defence.

The facts are clear. The minister told us that his used tanks would cost $650 million. Now we learn that the cost is closer to $1.3 billion.

First he bungles the treatment of Afghan detainees. Then he takes taxpayers to the cleaners by sole sourcing the procurement contracts. Now money is no object for his tanks. What does this minister have to do to get fired?

[National Defence, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, during the committee of the whole held last evening in the House, we learned that the mission in Afghanistan has cost taxpayers $6.1 billion so far, that government officials can no longer stop the meter from running and that the mission's budget has already gone up by $400 million—and that does not even include equipment. In fact, let us talk about that.

On April 12, the minister announced the procurement of 100 used tanks with a maintenance contract for $650 million. Now he is saying it will cost twice as much. Twice!

Why should Canadian taxpayers pay this $1.3 billion bill to cover the incompetence of this compulsive spender?

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, unfortunately, all good things must come to an end. A great deal has been said here this evening, and, I think, a review of the blues would show that this discussion could go on. In closing, I would like to revisit a few points.

First of all, I would like to talk about the Chinook. It came to our attention, and to that of certain journalists, that the F series Chinook helicopters need to be more heavily armoured and need added elements of protection, because they are not capable of protecting themselves.

Yet, according to Boeing itself, the base model Chinooks cost $40 million U.S. However, because of the way we want to use them, they will cost $80 million.

How can we possibly stay within the $4.7 billion budget, if the price of the helicopters doubles?

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

You have done nothing. You are the minister. We are still waiting.

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, I think he should reply to Mrs. Clarke.

She said that it is unfair that soldiers are buying their own footwear and why should a military man have to pay for his own gear.

Her son is working right now in supplies, so she knows what she is talking about. I hope that the minister will take a look at that.

[Business of Supply, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Chair, I was speaking of a soldier as such. In my opinion, what is most useful to a soldier after a rifle are his or her boots.

It seems that the soldiers in Afghanistan are obliged to pay for the boots they need out of their own pockets, and even to look to our British allies to buy them. I have also learned that there will be a delivery but not until October.

What does the minister intend to do to ensure that our soldiers have proper boots?