John McCallum

[National Defence, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have taken a very useful step with respect to the maritime helicopters. Some weeks ago I made the decision to re-bundle the contracts, which means that instead of having two contracts we now will have a single contract for the helicopter. There is an industry consensus and virtual unanimity that this is positive in the sense that we will get the helicopters faster. Not only that, but it clearly lowers the risk and is likely to reduce the costs. We are on track to get the right helicopter at the best price as fast as possible.

[Badger Flood, February 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely conscious of the very difficult situation in Badger. Just this morning I received a letter from the minister and I responded to that letter within two hours. The process is now underway to provide financial assistance under the law.

In addition, the armoury nearby is providing assistance to the Red Cross and to other first responders. We have taken these two actions and we are closely monitoring the situation.

[The Budget, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, early in my days as defence minister I received advice from the current military leadership, as opposed to retired military people, that there was a budget shortfall of $936 million. Little did I know at the time but the government had the wisdom to wipe out this gap with a stroke of the pen in a single year. There is no more gap.

Now that the objective has been achieved, we are on a path of reallocation and making difficult choices to build the military of the future.

[National Defence, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as I have explained many times in the House, it is deep in the psychology and the psyche of the military that safety always comes first and that we never sacrifice safety for schedule.

As I also have explained in the House, with the re-bundling of the helicopter contract the process is underway. We are guaranteed to have lower risk and the helicopter delivered faster than would otherwise be the case. That is where the matter stands and I think it is in a very satisfactory state of affairs.

[National Defence, February 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members in the House will join the hon. member across the aisle in congratulating the members of the Canadian Forces for their magnificent rescue operations which we have seen in the last few weeks. They truly have been superb.

In terms of the member's question, some time ago I explained to the House that we were re-bundling the contract so we would get the helicopter with less risk and more quickly. That process is on track.

[National Defence, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the essence of my answer is that I do not want this double standard to continue. That is precisely why I addressed the issue and why we have changed this so that there is no double standard.

There is a single standard for all members of the Canadian Forces, irrespective of rank. It takes time to move things in government, I am discovering. We have not yet solved the retroactivity section of the issue, but we are working on it.

[National Defence, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, when I first came into this job and I heard through the media about Major Henwood's experience it made an important impression upon me. I have worked since that time to resolve this obvious anomaly whereby, if one loses legs or arms, one gets the money, but only if one is a colonel or a general. That seemed clearly wrong.

It takes some time in defence to change things. We have already made that change. Looking forward, I am still working on the retroactivity section of the problem.

[National Defence, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why I have to answer the same question so many different times. The fact is that the military plan was devised weeks ago.

The other point that everybody in the army understands but perhaps the hon. member does not, is that ultimately in a democracy it is not the army that decides where the army will go. It is the democratically elected government acting on the military advice of the military that makes that decision, and that is precisely what we did.

[National Defence, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, when we withdrew our soldiers from Afghanistan we still had, and we still have, air and naval forces there. We also said at the time that we may return to Afghanistan at some future date, which is precisely what we announced this week.

As I said earlier in answer to a question from the hon. member's colleague, this was a military plan. I had discussed it with the military for a matter of weeks. It came from the military. It is clear we are able to sustain this mission. The military said it was feasible, the government announced it and it will be done.

[National Defence, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member prepared the second question before hearing my answer.

The fact of the matter is that the plan had been developed weeks ago.

However, I would draw the attention of the House to the member's own statement to the effect that the mission in Afghanistan is a second tier mission. I would question that. When we are coming to the aid of the beleaguered country of Afghanistan, when we are indicating our support for the continuing struggle against terrorism, when all our allies are backing this decision, when it is something of which Canadians will be proud, it is not a second tier mission.