Denis Coderre

[Afghanistan, April 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we will come back to that.

There is more evidence that the defence minister is incompetent. We had to learn about the treatment of 30 detainees through the media and not through the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, as the minister assured us we would.

I again look the minister straight in the eyes. Will the minister admit that he learned about allegations of torture through the media and that his arrangement with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission is a sham? When will the Minister of National Defence realize that the only way to protect our reputation in the world is to resign?

[Afghanistan, April 24th, 2007]

How low can one go, Mr. Speaker?

Since late 2004 and early 2005, a special team established by Canada's Department of National Defence has been directly advising President Karzai in order to put in place a governance and development monitoring structure in Afghanistan. Sixteen Canadian Forces officers are helping the Afghan government to establish the rule of law. This is far from being a military operation.

Can the minister confirm that this strategic advisory team, Operation ARGUS, that reports directly to the chief of the defence staff was aware of the situation of the Taliban prisoners?

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

You supported the mission. We initiated the mission. You do not know what you are talking about, that is your problem.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

How dare he say that.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

This is outrageous.

There is no need to make comparisons to Nazi Germany. We support the mission and what he said is completely indefensible and unconscionable. I would ask him to withdraw his statements.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Oh, come on.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the very vocal member for Crowfoot, for whom I have great respect and affection. The problem is that I felt his speech was aimed more at the NDP than the Liberal Party.

Today, it is important to understand the mission. We all support this mission, or at least our respective parties do. Not only do we support this mission, but we are also saying that, based on what the government decided in light of the motion we adopted at the time, February 2009 will be the end date.

In our opinion, it is clear that this is not a Canadian mission, but a NATO one. And to better serve Canada, the Prime Minister should call for the resignation of the Minister of National Defence.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. I am happy that he spoke about rights and so forth. In fact, I would have liked him to have celebrated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but his government did not want to. Does he think it is right to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on equipment, when we know perfectly well that it will not be ready for the mission? I am talking about the tanks.

Here is the real question: since he is not afraid of giving his opinion, can he say if he thinks we should stay after February 2009? What is his position on that?

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Lévis—Bellechasse wants to hold on to what little credibility he has, he should certainly not be questioning the integrity of the members of this House. No one is supporting the terrorists. Let us have a serious debate. If he wants to make personal attacks, he should know that we can do so too, it is not hard. It is easy to start, and we can be done with it.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to enforce a higher level of debate. I will not accept personal attacks being made on me.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of difficulty accepting the NDP's position because its solution is to abort the mission. What kind of credibility does it have?

It is possible to dislike how the mission is unfolding, but we believe that it is necessary. Stability and instruments of security are needed if we want to establish an environment conducive to development and one that will counter poverty and contribute to tackling the hellish drug problem. That is why the military operation is necessary.

However, we do not wish to do it piecemeal, as proposed by the government. We have the feeling that, from the beginning, the focus was on military operations because the military aspect is seven times greater than the development component.

A military operation is necessary if we wish to have development, diplomacy and geopolitical stability. The NDP does not have any credibility. It believes that we should pull the plug on the mission immediately.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that I did not say that every time an announcement is made it says that we need the equipment for the mission.

If the member wants to talk about sovereignty, why is the government spending $3.4 billion and delivering a blank cheque to Boeing when the Canadian industry has no benefit from it? Instead of spending $3.4 billion on the C-17s, they can be rented for $42 million per year. I just completed my M.B.A. and when I look at the balance sheet, I believe that is a better move.

As for the Chinooks, the member knows why the money was spent on the Chinooks. Because of the climate in Afghanistan, those helicopters are needed. The Liberals believe in helicopters and we have said that since the beginning. If the House remembers, the member for LaSalle—Émard, the former prime minister, was putting together a plan for that purpose.

However, if the government's policy is to spend the money in the way that it is being spent without any bids and using it for things like the tanks for the mission and then sending tanks to Darfur, then I want to see its white paper because I think the government is being irresponsible.