Gordon O'Connor

[National Defence, June 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made on equipment. The government has not made any decision. When it does, it will be to the benefit, first, of the military, second, of Canadians, and third, of industry, which will get industrial benefits.

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows:

a) Other then making recommendations to Public Works and refining internal processes, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces have no authority to make changes to the government procurement system.

b) Internally, the Department of National Defence’s procurement process is being improved by defining operational requirements using high level mandatory requirements and focusing technical specifications on high level performance characteristics reducing the time required to prepare and respond to requests for proposals. In addition, off-the-shelf, civilian and military, products will be employed whenever mandatory requirements are met. As well, projects are being grouped under a single division to leverage the benefits and synergies of co-locating common project management activities. Finally, a specific effort is being made to recruit, train and manage professional project managers that will contribute to a faster process

c) In the short term, the department is currently evaluating options to ensure that the Canadian Forces have the right mix of equipment and hopes to pursue cabinet approval for a number of projects in the near future.

d) As of May 2006, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces have not begun any studies for new military ports in the Arctic. However, the department is looking at options to improve its presence, surveillance and response capabilities in the Arctic.

e) As of May 2006, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces have not completed any environmental impact studies on the results of creating a deep-water port near Iqaluit. However, it will be looking at environmental and consultative work on the Arctic in the near future

f) As of May 2006, no feasibility studies have been completed for the acquisition of icebreakers. Options to improve the Canadian Forces’ presence, surveillance and response capabilities in the Arctic are under consideration.

g) The Department of National Defence has done extensive research and scientific evaluation, dating from the 1950s onwards, on means to implement an Arctic surveillance system for the detection of submarines transiting through Canadian Arctic waters. The department will continue to explore the best means and options for maintaining domain awareness in the Arctic, including submarine detection.

[National Defence, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, not only is the member locked in Groundhog Day, but he seems to be the Forrest Gump of critics because he keeps asking the same question over and over and he keeps getting the same answer.

I would remind people that the member does not care about the military. All he cares about is petty politics.

[National Defence, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is locked in Groundhog Day. The member keeps asking the same question and he gets the same answer. The same answer is, I have followed the rules in the past, I will follow the rules now and I will follow the rules in the future.

Talk about that member, the member voted against the military. He does not care about the military and he does not know anything about the military.

[Afghanistan, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement we had with the Afghan government fulfills the needs that we have from the point of view of security of the prisoners. The Red Cross or the Red Crescent is responsible to supervise their treatment once the prisoners are in the hands of the Afghan authorities. If there is something wrong with their treatment, the Red Cross or Red Crescent would inform us and we would take action.

[Afghanistan, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that is a standard procedure for our military no matter what operation it is on throughout the planet. When it takes prisoners, it will always follow the rules of the Geneva Convention. There is no lower standard than that. That is in every case whether the operation is under the Geneva Convention or not.

[Darfur, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we have had no requests for troops for Darfur additional than what we have provided. If and when the request comes, we will consider it.

[National Defence, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the procurement strategy for various pieces of equipment will be determined by the government. I find it strange that the member opposite, who has such an interest in defence, voted against our troops in Afghanistan. He certainly has some interest in the welfare of our troops by his hypocritical act.

[National Defence, May 29th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this government will implement our defence policy in accordance with our policy. When cabinet approves the acquisitions, we will go forward with the proper procurement processes to acquire the equipment.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, May 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked a lot in his questions. With respect to dealing with the insurgency, one of the big factors is Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan has about 80,000 soldiers in the areas adjacent to Afghanistan. Part of the reason why we are seeing more activity by the Taliban in our area is because the Pakistanis have been successful in starting to root some of them out.

There has to be an arrangement between Pakistan and Afghanistan to try and seal the border. What we are doing in Kandahar province, as the Brits move into Helmand province and as the Dutch move into the province north of us, is trying to move into every part of the province, so that the Taliban or the insurgents have no room to move. We are trying to press them out of the area.

With respect to the other command in control, essentially nothing is changing when it goes from Enduring Freedom to NATO. No units change. Nothing actually changes. It is all the same.