Gordon O'Connor

[National Defence, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the delay of this project is another indication of a failed procurement system. The government takes years to decide whether it wants something, years to decide what it wants, and years to decide who will provide the product or service it seeks. This endless waste and indecision cost Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars each year and contribute to the ongoing capability decay of the Canadian Forces.

The search and rescue requirement is well known. There are only two competitors. Why has the government been unable to meet its own schedule?

[National Defence, June 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's fixed wing search and rescue fleet is so old that it is available only about 50% of the time. The government confidently publicized that the search and rescue project would be contracted by July 2005 and first deliveries would occur by February 2006, but the promised fast track for the project is not happening. In fact, it is two years behind schedule.

With the search and rescue aircraft capability deteriorating and procurements taking years to be delivered, what is the government doing to guarantee this vital service to Canadians?

[National Defence, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is the other side that is giving us insane obscurity.

Recently, three of Canada's top military officers told our defence committee that they will soon be making recommendations to balance base infrastructure against the priorities detailed in the Liberal defence policy statement.

Infrastructure has been underfunded by the Liberals for years. This puts the military in a precarious situation where it must choose between base infrastructure and operational capability. Without a doubt it will choose operational capability. As a consequence, is the minister prepared to close any military bases?

[National Defence, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, twice in this House the minister implied that if the budget bill, Bill C-43, were not passed, the military would not get its money. This is false. The Department of Finance advises:

Legislation is not required for many of the spending measures proposed in Budget 2005, such as the funding for National Defence, as parliamentary approval can be achieved through the normal appropriation process.

Why did the minister grandstand and mislead the House with respect to funding for the military?

[Canadian Forces Day, June 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as a former soldier and the official opposition critic for national defence, I am pleased to rise in the House today to commemorate Canadian Forces Day.

Serving one's country in the military is both the highest honour and the most profound duty. It demonstrates an individual's willingness to assume the most demanding and dangerous obligations of citizenship and creates a debt of gratitude owed by the society they fight to protect.

One day of tribute seems hardly enough to reflect and pay respect to the work done on behalf of Canadians by our military in Canada and abroad. I encourage my constituents and all Canadians to take time to recognize the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform every day.

I would like to personally thank all members of the Canadian Forces for their exemplary service.

[National Defence, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Liberal government has little interest in Goose Bay except at election time.

When the government took office in 1993, revenues from allies were nearly $80 million. This year it will only be $23 million. If the trend continues, training at Goose Bay will cease and the base will fade to black.

The Liberals promise and promise, but they do not deliver. With such a depressing track record, why should the people of Newfoundland and Labrador believe the government?

[National Defence, May 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, recently I asked the minister what his government was doing to ensure the future of CFB Goose Bay. He answered that he and the Prime Minister had personally intervened with every foreign defence minister.

Yet in a radio interview this morning the minister still has no firm commitment for CFB Goose Bay and the people of Labrador. Expecting to convince foreign militaries to come back to Goose Bay is not good enough.

Why is the minister prepared to see the base activity continue to decay and the economic well-being of Labrador decline as a result?

[National Defence, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the military will know who is telling the truth. The government has known about this serious problem for some time, yet chose to hide it. There are at least 20 open files seeking resolution.

Now the media, through access to information, has informed the public of the use of agent orange and the consequences to soldiers' health, yet the government is only starting to respond. Why does the government have to be spurred by public opinion before taking responsibility for the health consequences of putting the military in harm's way?

[National Defence, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in 1966 the Liberal government authorized the spraying of agent orange on forests in CFB Gagetown. At or about that time, thousands of troops were serving in Gagetown, including me.

Recently it has been confirmed that agent orange can cause cancer and other medical problems. Will the minister detail what action the government is taking to address this serious and tragic health problem?

[National Defence, May 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that the members of the armed forces know that the Conservatives will stand behind them and they will not slash and burn like the Liberals did--