Gordon O'Connor

[National Defence, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will say again that I have never seen the memo and I have never read the memo, but it is quite incidental. What the member is talking about is whether the army has the ability to engage in a second large operation. I have been subject to many briefings from the day I joined the department until now, and continuously I have been told the army does not have the ability to send a large number of troops to any other location.

[Afghanistan, October 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is no intention of employing sailors, airmen or airwomen in infantry roles. As well, there is no intention of extending the time that people are in Afghanistan if they are in active operations.

[National Defence, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we are now seeing the hidden agenda of the Liberals. They wanted to destroy the communities of Bagotville and Goose Bay. That is totally unacceptable.

Our government will implement our Canada first policy, which will increase the resources and the operational commitments at both those sites. There is a bright future for CFB Goose Bay and CFB Bagotville.

[National Defence, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that member is making outrageous claims. There is no danger with respect to search and rescue. The search and rescue programs are going on efficiently throughout the country. Many citizens have been saved by our search and rescue organizations.

[National Defence, October 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will ignore all those personal attacks. I had better watch what I say on my opinion of that member.

There is no cut in search and rescue. Search and rescue carries on in Ontario. What we are talking about is a small fund of $8 million nationally that is allocated each year to provinces that have worthwhile projects that can improve search and rescue.

The issue for Ontario is still open. I am waiting for a meeting with the Ontario officials to resolve this. The member from the party opposite should get his facts straight.

[Afghanistan, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we are in Afghanistan as part of NATO. We have certain responsibilities within Afghanistan, particularly the Kandahar province. It is not our function to become the government of Afghanistan. We do not negotiate on the part of Afghanistan. It is up to the government to make any arrangements.

[Afghanistan, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, a number of times in the House the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I have confirmed the value of our mission in Afghanistan. We are in Afghanistan because the government of Afghanistan asked us to be there. If we are not there and NATO is not there, the Taliban will return and there will a murderous regime in Afghanistan. I do not think the NDP wants that in Afghanistan.

[Public Works and Government Services, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member opposite gets his outrageous numbers. In fact, the number exceeds the total value of all the contracts we have even talked about.

This is a ridiculous allegation. We are getting the aircraft and we will be getting the ships and the trucks that the military needs. Citizens of Canada will benefit by this. There will be industrial benefits and we will get it at the world price.

[National Defence, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the member's question. We are going in a transparent process. There will be benefits to Canadians, to Canadian industry and to the military. This is the equipment that the armed forces needs.

[National Defence, October 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of the member's allegation that there is an impasse. There is no impasse whatsoever. Negotiations are ongoing right now with Boeing. We expect that Boeing will provide the full requirement of benefits, and all the military purchases of the future will benefit Canadians, not only the military.