Gordon O'Connor

[Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, in both cases the Americans have a very professional armed force and army. If we operate within the command of the American armed forces, we have all the support and we have clear command and control. Similarly with NATO, if we are going to have a NATO organization, NATO also is an alliance of like-minded countries in the north Atlantic and they have a very professional organization. In either case the Canadians can work with NATO or the United States and I think they could be comfortable with both.

[Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I will try to answer the first one about time.

When the government commits the forces to a mission, it has to analyze what has to be done. There has to be a criteria for success. What is the gauge of success? What efforts have to be put in? An estimate has to be made either by our own staff or by our allies or in concert with our allies to estimate how long the mission will take to achieve our goals. There has to be some sense of how long the forces are going to be there. The minister said that it would not be 10 years. Certainly now it will not be 20. Maybe we put it in a bracket. Maybe our commitment is for 10 years or five years, but there is some reasonable estimate that can be made based on the criteria of success.

If the forces cannot achieve these criteria and cannot achieve success, then that is the alternative. At some point we have to pull out. If we feel we are making success, then we have to report that we are making success. We have no idea what the criteria is for success. I believe we can make a time estimate. We can say the forces will be in there for so many years.

With regard to equipment, it is true that we are going to have a variety of allies with different equipment. What is important for us is what our troops are equipped with, within the limits of our financial capability and our technical capability what can we provide our troops in terms of weapons and protection and mobility. For instance, in the commitment we are going into, I am aware that the Americans in the zone will have helicopters and can provide helicopter lift, et cetera, and there is no immediate need for helicopter lift. When our troops go down a road or into a village or up a hill somewhere, they have to have the best protection possible. My contention at the moment , because this decision was made without making sure we had the equipment the troops precisely need for Afghanistan, is this is being rammed through and we are not necessarily making the best choices.

[Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to speak on the matter of our commitment to Afghanistan. The Conservative Party believes that political disputes should be resolved by negotiation and compromise, and therefore we oppose any use of terrorism, whether it is national or international. In particular, we believe that international terrorism must be opposed wherever possible because it is in our national interest. It threatens our values and our society.

Conservatives believe that Canada must oppose international terrorism, not only through use of military force but also diplomacy, international assistance and the promotion of democratic values. By combining our efforts with those of other democracies, we can overcome the scourge of international terrorism.

The terrorists who bombed the twin towers in New York were trained in Taliban run camps in Afghanistan. Twenty five of the victims were Canadians and therefore an attack on the towers was an attack on us. Almost immediately after the attack the United States declared that it would move against the terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Canada joined the coalition that entered Afghanistan, overthrew the Taliban government, and moved quickly to eliminate the international terrorist camps.

It was certainly appropriate and justified for Canada to send troops to assist in the overthrow of the Taliban regime. The battalion group we committed operated in the Kandahar area. Its function was to seek out and eliminate terrorists and insurgents who were located in the geographic area. As expected, our soldiers' performance was outstanding and helped to bring a degree of law and order to the Kandahar area. Although there were no direct battle casualties, tragically four soldiers were killed by friendly fire. Once the troops had accomplished their mission, the battalion group was withdrawn to Canada.

This initial commitment to fight the Taliban was made in response to an attack on our citizens, not to assist the failing state. Had we not been attacked, it seems unlikely that we would be in Afghanistan today since none of our national interests were involved until we were provoked. While we were committing a battalion group to the combat role in the Kandahar area, another battalion group was sent into the Kabul area as a peacekeeping force to protect the capital and the provisional government.

When we withdrew the battalion group from the Kandahar area, the government of Afghanistan asked us to remain in the capital to help further stabilize the situation. Canada agreed. This was a sensible decision as no civilized society wants the return of the Taliban government. The risk attached to this important role was clearly demonstrated when two of our soldiers were killed when their unarmed vehicles hit a mine.

Recently, the government announced that our commitment to Afghanistan would change again. The Canadian Forces would abandon Kabul and move into the Kandahar area, the heartland of the Pathan, the major supporters of the Taliban. The new commitment involves three elements: a provincial reconstruction team, a task force headquarters and a battalion group.

The provincial reconstruction team will have the role of supporting the local government and police force to reinforce law and order in the Kandahar area. The task force will command the multinational battle groups located in the south of Afghanistan while the battle group will seek out terrorists or insurgents and eliminate them. Let there be no doubt, this force will be involved in a combat role, not a peacekeeping role.

These changes to the current commitment were announced some months ago without any explanation from the government. Without a satisfactory explanation of why we are deepening our commitment, there is a suspicion that the government is reacting to local events without any real concept of where we are going.

When a government decides to intervene in a failing state there are a number of considerations that must be taken before committing troops. It must be satisfied that the mission supports the goals and objectives of Canada's foreign policy; the mandate is realistic, clear and enforceable; there is a clearly defined concept of operation; it has an effective command and control structure; there are clear rules of engagement; there is sufficient international financial and political support for the mission; it has adequate and properly equipped forces; it can sustain the commitment and engage in other international activities that may arise; there has been an effective consultation between mission partners; there are criteria to measure progress; there is a definition of success; there is an acceptable timeframe for the commitment; and there is a clear exit strategy if the mission is not successful.

I do not have great confidence that the government had satisfactory answers to these considerations before committing our troops to increased involvement in Afghanistan. In particular, I doubt that the government has a clear political and military strategy for Afghanistan or criteria on which to measure progress or a definition of success or an exit strategy. We have had pronouncements from government officials who indicate that our commitment in Afghanistan may be 5 years, 10 years or even as long as 20 years. It is obvious that the government does not have an idea how long the commitment will go on.

What really irritates me about the government's management of the military commitment to Afghanistan is that it has created a crisis situation and it is running out of time. The government has sent troops on a dangerous high risk mission to Kandahar and neglected to properly equip them before they arrived in Afghanistan despite a commitment from the Prime Minister not to send men and women abroad or put them in harm's way without giving them the best of equipment.

Being confronted with the challenge of Kandahar, the defence staff is doing what it can to prepare. Military personnel do not have what they need for the mission and have formulated a long list of equipment they desperately need for the troops to defend themselves, protect innocent Afghanis and defeat the Taliban.

The government knows it has made a hasty decision without thinking through the consequences. The cross-Canada speeches by the minister about Afghanistan and its dangers is like closing the barn door after the cow is gone. It committed troops to confront the Taliban without providing them with the necessary equipment.

To solve the political problem they have created, the Liberals are now planning to bypass the competitive procurement process by sole sourcing the bulk of the equipment for Afghanistan. They have also tried ramming through aircraft projects that could support our expeditionary efforts by creating requirements that can in reality only be met by one solution. In military terms, it is called situating the appreciation, knowing what one wants and writing the documents to arrive at the favoured solution.

By sidestepping the checks and balances of fair and open competition, the Liberals are admitting that they have done relatively little in 12 years to improve the military's defunct procurement system. In rushing through equipment for Afghanistan, the government is cutting corners on safety and security. Some examples are selecting 10-year-old, outdated, level one armour protection for the armoured personnel carriers instead of the much more effective level three protection.

Deciding that delivery on time is two and a half times as important as performance when selecting the winner of the armoured patrol vehicle project. This is bizarre and to add to the problem is the fact that the government did not ask for the latest version of armoured protection on the vehicles.

The government unwisely meandered into this commitment without having a clear idea of what was involved. All this could have been avoided if the Liberals had acted with some forethought. They have made a politically charged decision to commit troops to a high risk venture in Afghanistan without ensuring they are supplied with the proper equipment.

Some of our troops are already in the Kandahar area and the balance will be there by February. We in Parliament must support their efforts in any way we can. Wherever our troops have been sent, they have made us proud and they will do so again. The troops on the ground have a “can do” attitude and they will do whatever it takes to meet their tasks. However, when the government puts our forces in harm's way, it has a responsibility to be absolutely clear about what is to be accomplished, how it is to be accomplished, and when it is to be accomplished. It also has to provide the best equipment and logistic support available.

I have no doubt that our troops will do their part, but whether the government fulfills its part of the bargain, only time will tell.

[Veterans, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, during this year's Veterans' Week we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II, and 2005 has also been designated the Year of the Veteran. However, no week or even full year can ever begin to repay the eternal debt of gratitude we all owe to those who gave their lives to defend freedom. Because their sacrifice is forever part of our history, peace is now a part of our citizenship.

I find it especially appropriate that the theme of this Veterans' Week is “Honouring Veterans by Teaching Youth”. In this way, as the glorious contribution of those young men and women who sacrificed everything for their country recedes in the fog of time, their memory can be preserved by a new generation of Canadians.

It is sometimes said that Canada truly became a country at Vimy Ridge in April 1917, our first major military victory in the modern era. Even in defeat against overwhelming odds such as Dieppe in August 1942, we gained greater pride in our country and a deeper appreciation for liberty.

Over 100,000 Canadians from all provinces and territories of this great country made the supreme sacrifice in the defence of our way of life and our values. In the eyes of a grateful country, their valour and heroism will never be forgotten.

History recalls the name of the great battles of the first and second world wars and the Korean war. However, in thousands of other anonymous locations, at sea, in the countryside, in the desert and in forests, Canadians fell on the field of honour. All of them lie in the peace of the brave, their courage without equal.

Having faced the worst of human nature, they exhibited the best of it. Almost all of them wore on their arm the glorious insignia that identifies them forever as ours, because it included the word “Canada”.

On behalf of my party I salute with respect and pride the immortal contribution of our fallen sons and daughters.

[National Defence, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this is like Orwell: increased costs are savings.

The materiel management project, MASIS, is not the only software project that the government has mismanaged. The Canadian Forces supply system upgrade project overran by hundreds of millions of dollars, but who answered for that? The Canadian taxpayers.

Another example is the mismanagement of the current omnibus command and control project which could cost up to $10 billion. It already has come under fire by the Auditor Genera. Is this another sinkhole?

How can we trust the government to implement projects on time and on budget when it has such a shameful history of mismanagement and waste?

[National Defence, October 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the materiel management software project, MASIS, is a sinkhole with no end in sight. Costs have ballooned by over 100% and who knows what the costs will be by the time it is complete, if ever. According to the department, this project is supposed to save money, yet the costs are increasing at such a rate it is doubtful that any savings will be achieved. With no end in sight, the government is afraid to cut its losses.

Is the government embarrassed to tell Canadians that it has wasted and mismanaged their money yet again?

[Queensway Carleton Hospital, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 135 brought forward by my colleague and neighbour from the riding of Nepean—Carleton. The motion urges the government to continue leasing NCC land to the Queensway Carleton Hospital at a rent of $1 per year, starting at the end of the current lease in the year 2013.

My colleague has worked tirelessly for the past several months on this initiative, along with provincial member of parliament John Baird. He has successfully raised awareness of the hospital's situation in the greater Ottawa area and is putting a commendable full court press on the government to solve the problem. As we know, the solution lies in its hands.

I stand today on behalf of my constituents in Carleton—Mississippi Mills to support my colleague's motion.

When the Queensway Carleton opened its doors in 1967, it was designed to serve approximately 125,000 residents who called the west end of Ottawa home. Over the past 30 years western Ottawa has become one of the fastest growing areas in the country. The hospital is now dealing with an area population of 400,000 in western Ottawa and in the Ottawa Valley, stretching its capacity to the maximum.

My constituency includes three wards in the west end of the city of Ottawa, West Carleton, Goulbourn and Kanata, the latter of which alone has a population of approximately 65,000. My riding also includes the Lanark County township of Mississippi Mills, where even with its very fine hospital, the Almonte General, residents often find themselves using the services of the Queensway Carleton.

At least 100,000 of my constituents, including my family, are served by the Queensway Carleton Hospital. The hospital's catchment area, western Ottawa and the Ottawa Valley, is one of the fastest growing areas in Canada with a high proportion of seniors and young families. As one can imagine, the value of the hospital as the primary health provider to my constituents is absolutely immeasurable.

The Queensway Carleton Hospital is west Ottawa's only full service community hospital providing essential medical and surgical programs and services. Employing over 1,400 health care professionals, the 240 bed hospital is the secondary referral centre for the Ottawa Valley. In 2004 and 2005 the hospital took in over 59,000 emergency patients.

The hospital staff, along with over 400 committed volunteers, focus on maintaining and enhancing their cornerstone programs: emergencies, childbirth, geriatrics, mental health, rehabilitation, as well as medical and surgical services. The Queensway Carleton Hospital's health care team provides expert care and puts patients and families first, giving an unparalleled standard of care for our community.

As with much of the health sector, the Queensway Carleton is suffering a funding shortage and is in constant need of financial assistance and stability.

In the 1990s the Liberal government began attacking its budget deficits by reducing funding to the provinces. As a result hospitals were closed, physician fees were frozen or cut, nurses were laid off, and spaces for medical students and medical technicians at government funded universities and colleges were cut back. The cut by the Liberal government of $25 billion from health care precipitated the current nationwide medical crisis.

During the 12 years of Liberal rule, the health care system has continued to deteriorate. It should be noted that Canadians were not concerned about the health of their health care system in 1993 when the Liberals took power, but now the crisis in health care ranks as Canadians' number one concern. It is no coincidence. It is the handiwork of the Liberals.

As finance minister, the now Prime Minister unilaterally cut health transfers to the provinces as well as the federal Department of Health's budget. It was the cuts then by the then finance minister that created problems such as the extremely long waiting lists that we have today.

On Monday the health minister insisted that wait times have decreased across the country, yet a report released yesterday by the Fraser Institute indicates that in at least five provinces, wait times have actually increased. The Fraser Institute's annual report on wait times indicates increased waiting times in a variety of areas such as orthopedic surgery and joint replacements. The report's release comes only days before the federal and provincial health ministers' scheduled meeting this weekend to discuss medical service benchmarks that are expected to go unmet.

When I recently asked my constituents if they knew anyone who had trouble accessing medical care, 54% of the respondents said yes, they had. This simply should not be. Canadians should be able to have confidence in their health care system and Conservatives will bring positive change when we form government.

The Conservative Party of Canada supports the Canada Health Act. Canadians should have reasonable access to timely and quality health care services no matter where they live or their income level. We support a publicly funded health care system.

Canadians should never be called upon to use their own funds to receive the services covered by the Canada Health Act. This is absolutely unacceptable, but many Canadians, who cannot get timely service, are forced to pay for medical care in places such as the United States because of the Canadian health care crisis precipitated by the Liberals.

Conservatives respect provincial jurisdiction over health care and a Conservative government will work collaboratively with the provinces to ensure that Canadians have access to the quality health care they deserve. An important part of having a viable health care system is ensuring that our hospitals are on a sound financial footing. There could not be a more perfect example than the situation facing the Queensway Carleton Hospital.

The Queensway Carleton Hospital occupies 50 acres of federal land on the Ottawa Greenbelt which is owned and operated by the federal government's National Capital Commission, a crown corporation. The hospital entered into a 40 year lease arrangement in July 1973 with the National Capital Commission, requiring the hospital to make an annual lease payment of approximately $23,000. This assessment was based on the market value of land in 1973.

The current arrangement expires in 2013, at which time the hospital has the option to renew. The renewal clause stipulates an annual lease obligation of 6.5% of the current value of the land pursuant to the Treasury Board of Canada policy. This means that the hospital will need to divert substantial resources away from patient care to cover lease payments to the NCC that could reach a million dollars.

Most hospitals in Ontario do not pay rent since funds are derived from philanthropists or municipalities who have given the hospitals land. The Queensway Carleton is the only hospital paying rent of the six hospitals in Canada located on federal government land. Why is there one set of rules for the Queensway Carleton and a different set of rules for the other five?

Even if we eliminate a comparison between the Queensway Carleton and the other hospitals on federal land, the government, through the National Capital Commission, is allowing a golf course to rent federal land for $1 a year by merely making a down payment of $200,000. Compare this to the Queensway Carleton which had to pay rent for 32 years and still pays some $23,000 per year. If the National Capital Commission lease agreement is unchanged, the hospital stands to pay millions in the coming years. Where is the justice and sense of this?

Speaking of sense, and more specifically nonsense, just follow the money trail. The federal government transfers funds for medical services to the provinces which in turn provide hospitals with funds partially financed by the federal government to cover the cost of their operations. Then the federal government, through the National Capital Commission, charges the Queensway Carleton Hospital rent to, in effect, recover part of the medical funding to the provinces. The money has made a complete circle back to the originator, namely, the federal government. Why would the government want to maintain such a nonsensical arrangement and at the same time deplete the resources of the hospital? It just boggles the mind.

The National Capital Commission is under the control of the cabinet and the government. That side of the House can simply tell the National Capital Commission to maintain the precedent that has been set with the other five hospitals and treat the Queensway Carleton with the same set of rules.

Nearly everyone will agree that the health care system is in crisis throughout this country. It needs stable funding, better management and reform. The major building block of the health care system is the General Hospital, which backs up all the other health care providers and services.

If this level of government is serious about improving health care, one of the concrete measures it could take is to authorize the National Capital Commission to reduce the rent of the Queensway Carleton Hospital to one dollar per year.

Therefore, I support my colleague's motion.

[National Defence, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has sinned. The fix is in.

The government has also abandoned open competition. It is declaring the aircraft projects matters of national security. They will not be subject to scrutiny by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, leaving those unfairly treated with a long court process well after the winner has been chosen.

There is no justification for the national security designation. It is simply a way to bypass scrutiny and open competition. Why is the government so resistant to open competition when billions in taxpayers' money are involved?

[National Defence, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, until recently the government was considering sole sourcing aircraft projects worth billions of dollars with no competition and no checks or balances. Now it is indicating that the projects are going to competition, but this is just smoke and mirrors. The government is setting requirements that are so restrictive and specific that its preferred choices will win. Other competitors will not have a fair chance.

Why is this government so determined to abandon fair competition? Who will benefit from this?

[National Defence, October 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that answer is nonsense. It is just rhetoric that adds nothing to the security of our troops.

Joint Task Force Two is buying 40 millimetre grenade machine guns, which are definitely required by the army to replace protection previously provided by antipersonnel landmines. Unfortunately, they are not buying grenades that self-destruct. Unexploded grenades can maim and kill innocent people just like mines.

Is the minister prepared to contravene the spirit of the Canadian sponsored treaty to ban antipersonnel landmines by leaving unexploded grenades littered throughout Afghanistan?