John McCallum

[National Defence, November 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the specific answer to the question is that the report has since been overtaken by events. The government, for example, has allocated an additional $69 million to protection from chemical, biological and nuclear warfare.

In general the government has allocated $7.7 billion over five years to increase the security of Canada. That money has gone to doubling the capacity of our special forces, investing with the provinces and municipalities to protect critical infrastructure such as power sources, and many other areas.

[Search and Rescue, November 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer this question. It almost sounds as if it is a planted Liberal question, because the fact of the matter is that a couple of weeks ago I was in Goose Bay and met a corporal who was involved in that incident and who made a personal plea to me to have those helicopters painted yellow.

I have issued the instruction that the search and rescue helicopters in Goose Bay be painted yellow, so it is happening.

[National Defence, November 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is no double standard whatsoever. The right hon. member ought to be aware that the $100 million for the Challengers does not come out of the defence budget. It is returned to the department. Therefore there is absolutely no connection between these numbers other than they happen to both be $100 million.

[National Defence, November 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the last budget being inadequate for security, may I remind the hon. member across the hall that we put in no less than a number exceeding $7 billion over five years, some of which went to the military and some of which went to other security measures. He may think that $7 billion is not a lot of money. In my books that is a substantial sum.

[National Defence, November 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as a consequence of the war on terrorism, we have already received an additional $295 million from the centre. All of this is very normal. In terms of the $100 million, discussions are ongoing with Treasury Board and finance.

In terms of handing over sovereignty, the member is absolutely and totally wrong. This planning group with the Americans will protect the lives of Canadians and Americans but it will not put our troops or sailors under American control, not whatsoever.

[National Defence, November 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the last thing the government is doing is abandoning our military.

Cooperation with the Americans in the defence of North America goes back to 1940 and the Ogdensburg treaty signed by our prime minister of the day and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. We have been in a joint venture with the Americans since 1940 to defend the continent and there is nothing new in that.

In terms of the navy, we have cancelled absolutely non-essential matters such as temporary duty travel expenses, which will be reduced. The core function of the navy to defend our coasts is very much intact.

[National Defence, November 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the hon. member for her recent election as vice-chair of the defence committee. I am aware of her genuine commitment to the men and women of the Canadian forces and I am sure she will do an excellent job.

As for the Sea Kings, as I have mentioned many times, it is for me a very high priority and I am trying to ensure that we get the right helicopter as quickly as possible.

[National Defence, November 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her excellent question.

I have advised my department that we will not be proceeding with the supply chain project. Instead we will be moving forward with a strategic approach to managing materiel within the Department of National Defence.

This decision will improve the management and lower the costs of our supply chain. It is also consistent with my commitment to achieve administrative efficiencies with the department as I outlined in my Toronto Board of Trade speech.

[National Defence, November 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of water around our country. It is always a challenge for both Canada and the United States to defend it. We will be working more closely together in the future to do that.

But I can tell the hon. member that in terms of our top priorities, there has been absolutely no change. These priorities are: force generation for the campaign against terrorism, maritime surveillance, force protection and Victoria Class submarine preparations. There has been absolutely no reduction in any of those vital programs.

[National Defence, November 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, our borders are far from defenceless. As I have said in the House before, there are stresses in the defence budget. We are not allowed to run a deficit. Therefore some low priority items in the navy's budget are being postponed as a result of the need to live within our budget. This is responsible behaviour from the point of view of the taxpayer.

I might add that this new planning group with the United States, where we will work more closely with the United States to defend our coasts, will be a plus for Canada.