House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.
National Defence November 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, we were not talking about one year; we were talking about six. I wonder if the minister understands his government's election commitment to Canadians. A promise implemented two elections from now is no promise. Will the Minister of National Defence confirm that the 5,000 soldiers promised by the Liberal government represent a true baseline increase to the forces, that is, a total of 65,000, and that it will happen in this mandate?
National Defence November 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the defence committee the Minister of National Defence was asked how long it would take to recruit and train the 5,000 soldiers promised in the Liberal election platform and about the related costs. The committee was advised that it will take five to six years to implement the manpower increase and the costs at this time are unknown.
Will the Minister of National Defence advise the House why the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party made an election promise to Canadians that they did not cost and cannot keep in their current mandate?
National Defence October 27th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the minister of defence assured us that his department took all the appropriate measures to ensure that the submarines were operational and safe. We now learn that the department was aware for some time of difficulties with insulation and electrical wiring.
Will the minister advise the House when the department knew the insulation and wiring needed replacing? Why was it not done before HMCS Chicoutimi sailed?
National Defence October 27th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the minister of defence has repeatedly distanced himself from the tragic incident aboard the Chicoutimi by pointing a finger at our navy. Every time he is asked a question on submarines, his standard answer is, “The navy made me do it”.
Why will the minister not take responsibility for his department's decisions with respect to the procurement of the submarines?
Supply October 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I will not get into the budget and explain how it works because the Liberals seem to have difficulty understanding it.
During the election campaign, the Liberals proposed, through the foreign affairs department, a peacekeeping brigade, which came as a complete surprise to national defence. It was specifically called a peacekeeping brigade because the people who came up with the idea had no concept of combat capability. They were going to create a force with blue berets and rifles and negotiate peace. That is why we are having this debate today. We want to make certain that the 5,000 regulars and the 3,000 reserves that go into the military will be trained for combat at the highest standard only.
Supply October 21st, 2004
Madam Speaker, I wish to make a couple of comments and then pose a question to the hon. member.
Regarding the uniform situation, the fact is that at the time we deployed forces to Afghanistan we did not have sufficient summer tan uniforms, desert uniforms, for our troops.
If I understand the witness, the military officer at that time, he did not answer definitively whether if there had been those uniforms available would he have taken those over the green uniforms. So the matter is that the Canadian Forces did not have the necessary uniforms to go into a desert climate.
The other point, our leader was referring to the rules of engagement. There have been instances where our forces were deployed overseas where the rules of engagement had not been crafted properly and precisely enough for our troops.
The third point I want to make and I will lead it into a question. I did intend to use the word “decay” and decay is a scientific term. It refers to a body that starts in its original state and over time it basically disappears. Would the member for London—Fanshawe confirm whether there are now less supply ships in the navy, less destroyers in the navy, less aircraft in the air force, less armoured squadrons, and less artillery squadrons than there were when the Liberals took power?
Supply October 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, given that the armed forces have decreased year over year, the headquarters we have today is far too large for the requirements of the Canadian Forces. We now have a headquarters that is sort of a bureaucratic driven department.
The headquarters has more members than the navy, probably more members than the air force and close to being equal to the army field force. It is excessively large.
The other problem is that we have military officers tangled in with bureaucrats all through the headquarters. One of the great difficulties with the headquarters is that when the minister wants military advice he rarely gets pure military advice. He gets blended bureaucratic political advice. I think the government should be looking at the DND headquarters.
Supply October 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I believe the previous defence minister alluded to it during the election, and it is our understanding today, that the government will be making a series of announcements of grand things that it intends to do but it will not really commit any money for quite awhile.
The government is going into a defence review that has stretched on. I think this defence review was to be completed about a year ago and it has been stretching. Every time someone brings up the defence review it goes on for three more months, three more months, three more months. The latest prediction I have is that the defence review will be completed by June next year.
If the government meets that schedule of June of next year and it has a completed new policy, then the force structure people within the department will have to take that policy and the guidance that is in that policy and develop a force structure. The force structure will then have to be approved. The earliest possible time the government could trickle any money into this new policy would be April 2006. If it is careful with that process, it can make sure that the significant funding requirements are shunted into 2007, 2008 and 2009 by which time somewhere in there it would hope to run in an election and hope that it does not have to meet the bills.
We are in this endless chain process where the military is being spun around and around with promises but there is no real money going into it.
Supply October 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca said that the government had committed to increasing the capital program by $7 billion, but at the moment what we have in practical terms are statements.
For example, in the case of the naval logistic vessels that we, by the way, referred to in our campaign are going into a study period now. There is going to be a study of a few years and it will be years and years before we ever see these vessels. I do not know how long the search and rescue project, which was also recently announced, will take.
In many of these cases the government announces the projects so that it can say it has announced them, but whether it actually implements and concludes them is another matter. If we are going to maintain the kind of armed forces we have today, we will have to substantially increase the capital program because it is anemic right now. The military only has about one-quarter to one-third of what is needed to achieve the force structure that is needed to do its roles.
Yes, the government has made some contribution, but I would not exaggerate the importance of that contribution. It is not significant against the whole demand.
Supply October 21st, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is not my responsibility to structure the Canadian armed forces. I did that in the past as a military officer, but it is not my responsibility now. It is the government's responsibility. The government and its military advisers will have to work out how they can effectively train and employ 5,000 additional service people, which should not be a great problem.
The hon. member has certainly changed his position in the last 10 months. In an article from his local newspaper he complained that government cuts were hurting the military rank and file. He complained about rent increases, post-living differentials going down, new equipment that was years away from coming on line, all kinds of antiquated equipment that needed repair, threatened cuts to the military by the type of review that is going on right now. I do not know what happened in the last 10 months, but you seem to have adopted an opposite position.