John McCallum

[National Defence, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the hon. member is talking nonsense. This group is very well protected by the Germans who are currently deployed. The same was true for a small group of NATO soldiers.

It is the opposition which is causing unnecessary worry for the families. It is the opposition which by raising these non-issues is casting aspersions on the fine work done by the Canadian Forces.

I would suggest the opposition support our forces and talk about their fine achievements rather than raising these non-issues.

[National Defence, May 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I said it was a non-issue and I repeat that. While the government has every concern, of course, for the safety of our troops, a small reconnaissance mission was unarmed, as is often the case and as was also the case with a small unarmed NATO mission. Is the hon. member accusing NATO of incompetence?

This is normal. Indeed, in the general line of questioning of the Alliance members, what are they trying to do, make the families worry? Suggest that the Canadian Forces are incompetent? With friends like the Alliance, the Canadian--

[National Defence, May 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the questions are a bit strange today. The army is not negotiating for the government. The army has never done this and never will. The government has not made any decisions. How could the army negotiate something that the government has not decided yet? The army never negotiates for the government.

[National Defence, May 6th, 2003]

My goodness, Mr. Speaker, the nonsense gets ever more silly by the day.

We committed from the very beginning to a sizable contingent to Afghanistan, some 1,800 soldiers for six months and another 1,800 in the following six months, working with our German allies, as I was discussing last night with my German counterpart in Ottawa. Only yesterday did I announce for the first time that Canada was offering to take command of the mission in the second six month period.

[National Defence, May 6th, 2003]

Neither, Mr. Speaker, and I must say the Alliance must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel today.

The fact of the matter is that we are on a reconnaissance trip, the appropriate diplomatic papers have not yet been signed, and so we are protected by the German forces who are in the field right now, this small reconnaissance team. Soon the papers will be signed and I can assure the hon. member in the House that when the time comes in August for our people to be deployed, they will be fully and appropriately and legally armed.

[National Defence, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, and the timing happens to be quite good. Later today I will be meeting my German counterpart. We are very pleased to be partnering with Germany in this important mission.

I am also pleased to announce to the House that, while the final decision is NATO's, Canada is pleased to be in command of the mission for the second six month period of the year.

[National Defence Act, May 5th, 2003]

moved that Bill C-35, An Act to amend the National Defence Act (remuneration of military judges), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in favour of the amendments to the National Defence Act that are being submitted to the House today.

The most substantial amendment will provide clear authority in the National Defence Act for retroactive pay raises for military judges. In doing so, it will allow for the continuing financial security of military judges.

I certainly do not have to remind members of this House of how important it is for the remuneration of military judges to be legislated and free of any influence on the part of the executive branch of government.

Only an independent, unbiased and efficient mechanism can depoliticize the process of establishing the remuneration of military judges. That is why the Military Judges Compensation Committee was created in 1999.

Every four years the military judges compensation committee conducts inquiries into the pay of military judges and makes recommendations to the Minister of National Defence as to what the appropriate levels of pay should be. The next review is scheduled to begin on September 1, 2003. The committee's report and recommendations on the adequacy of military judges' pay are expected by the end of May 2004.

Needless to say, failure to implement the recommendations that are accepted by the government could jeopardize the overall effectiveness of the entire compensation committee process. The amendment before us today will therefore allow the Treasury Board, upon recommendation by the Minister of National Defence, to implement compensation committee recommendations that may be made retroactive to the beginning of the review period, in other words, September 1, 2003.

As for retroactive pay increases, they are nothing new. Such adjustments are routinely implemented for civilian judges, employees of the public service and other members of the Canadian Forces. The proposed amendment to the National Defence Act will merely ensure that there is clear authority in the act for making pay amendments for military judges retroactive.

Several additional amendments to the National Defence Act not related to the military judges' remuneration were also proposed. These technical amendments deal with DNA testing in forensic science and with other issues meant to improve the effectiveness of the legislation. Their purpose, essentially, is to ensure consistency between the English and the French versions of the act.

In summary, the proposed amendments to the National Defence Act that are being submitted today will help ensure the financial security of military judges and the proper functioning of the military justice system. For these reasons, I hope the House will support the proposed amendments.

[National Defence, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have made it abundantly clear precisely what we are not going to do. When one is in the opposition one will not say no to any piece of equipment. One will urge the government to buy everything under the sun.

On the other hand, when one is a government, one has limited resources and one has to use them wisely and strategically. I have determined that of all the pressing demands upon us strategic lift unilaterally made to buy all these large aircraft, which only the two biggest NATO countries have, the United States and the United Kingdom, is not the right thing for Canada.

[National Defence, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have made it abundantly clear that one thing we are not about to do is make a unilateral purchase of large numbers of huge airplanes at a cost of $3 billion to $5 billion in strategic lift, because if we did that we would use up so much money for the lift that we would not have enough money left to put things into those big planes. On the other hand, we are still looking into cost effective alternatives to get the lift to which the hon. member refers.

[National Defence, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is entirely correct that the two ministers she referred to and indeed the government as a whole are working as hard as we can to get that helicopter as fast as possible. The two of us arrived in our new jobs on the same day and have been working ceaselessly since that time, through a re-bundling of the contract and other measures, to get the right helicopter as fast as possible.