House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 56% of the vote.
National Defence October 9th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fine work of my predecessor, I did not say that we had yet reached a state nirvana
Problems remain and we are addressing them as best we can. Seventy per cent of the military live in the private sector. It is a matter of fairness between those who live in the private sector and those who live on military bases. We should have equality in the rent for all of them.
National Defence October 9th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I think we all owe a debt of thanks to my predecessor, who over the last five years achieved very major increases in improvements in the quality of life of the military: improvements in housing, improvements in salary, improvements in family centres, and improvements in the treatment of stress disorders. One of the things we are doing is gradually moving to a market price basis for our rentals.
National Defence October 9th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, this program has brought in more than a billion dollars of training from five different countries. It has received high praise from, for example, the British minister of national defence, my counterpart.
As for the $65 million, it has not been wasted. It is just a question of how that money is spread over time. We will get every dollar of value in that contract over the life of the contract.
National Defence October 9th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit odd to hear an hon. member from the Prairies attacking a fantastic pilot training program in Moose Jaw that creates thousands of jobs. Had it not been for this program, the base at Moose Jaw would have closed down. As one who has lived four years in Manitoba, I know that jobs on the Prairies are not always that plentiful.
National Defence October 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I have said on several occasions that the military is under stress in a number of areas, but it is totally inappropriate to use this apocalyptic language.
I could give examples of a number of recent new investments we have undertaken: a new fleet of 15 search and rescue helicopters; 651 high tech armoured personnel carriers; 203 state of the art Coyote armoured reconnaissance vehicles; and a 24 item clothe the soldier project. I could go on and on.
National Defence October 7th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, it was true for my predecessor and it is true for me that the number one priority in the military is our people. It is true that my predecessor, over a period of five years, substantially improved the quality of life of the men and women of the Canadian Forces. That is not a job completed but it is a work in progress. We can be very proud of what we have achieved today.
Iraq October 1st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the second part of the question, I cannot give the member this assurance, because it is not up to the Minister of National Defence to take such a decision.
I can, however, tell the member that we have not contradicted one another. We said that diplomacy was the first choice. But, in the event of UN authorization, we have the capacity, if the government so decides, to send troops. It is simple.
Iraq October 1st, 2002
I am not going to get into exactly what that contribution would be because it is, so far, hypothetical, but the member can rest assured that the people at National Defence headquarters are always working on contingency plans and possible contributions to possible situations depending on what the government should require.
Also, I have been fully briefed on the British document.
Iraq October 1st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, it is desirable if NATO interventions have UN sanction. This has not always been the case. I would acknowledge that.
In terms of a realistic intervention, we have to balance the stresses on the people versus the urgency of the action. The Canadian Forces has a significant, substantial surge capacity. Were there to be a very major incident where the government attached a very high priority to taking action, we would be able to mobilize significant forces but at some human cost. I might remind the hon. member that we have a number of ships and other assets in the region in the Afghanistan area already.
I am saying that we are by no means suggesting any military commitment at this moment, as I said in my speech, but the hon. member can rest assured that if the government were to decide to take action a significant contribution would be available.
Iraq October 1st, 2002
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the motion today. I am honoured that my esteemed colleague and friend, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has seen fit to share his time with me. In doing so, I reiterate the government's commitment to foster open debate and consultation on foreign and defence policy issues.
There is absolutely no question that each one of us is very concerned about the situation in Iraq. I see this among my constituents. I see this in my family. I know that all of us are very concerned about what unpredictable forces could be unleashed should there be military action, as my colleague has described very well.
We were certainly encouraged by the recent announcement that the Government of Iraq would allow the return of UN weapons inspectors, but we must remain vigilant in demanding their full and unfettered access. Anything less would be gambling with the safety of the Iraqi people, the stability of the region and the security of the international community.
Within the United Nations, Canada has played an active role on this issue. On several occasions, we have required that the Iraqi regime meet all its international obligations. In fact, we have constantly supported the UN's multilateral actions with respect to Iraq.
Canada's commitment to a multilateral, rules-based international system is long and deep, going back at least to Lester Pearson, rooted in our commitment to international law and extending not only to the United Nations but to the WTO, to NATO and to other international institutions. I think perhaps as an economist I could pose the question: Why are we so committed to this multilateral, rules-based system? I would say because the alternative is a unilateral, power-based system, which kind of means the law of the jungle. If we look at it in a trade situation, given that our neighbour is so large, when it is a unilateral, power-based system we will strike out every time. On a multilateral, rules-based system we at least have a fighting chance.
In that vein, I was in NATO last week at the NATO defence ministers meeting when Mr. Rumsfeld proposed the NATO rapid deployment force. While Canada's position will not be official until the Prague summit in November, I welcome that because that is a multilateral, NATO-based system which would still have to go to the UN for approval. What is the alternative to that? It is a unilateral, U.S.-led system of coalitions. We have a long history of favouring a multilateral, rules-based system. In many respects, that is what this debate is all about.
Fundamentally, as of now the ball is in the court of the UN and that is exactly where the ball ought to be, but I would like to add to what my colleague has said a few words about how Canada has deployed the Canadian Forces when necessary to help thwart Iraq's contravention of the international institutions. I will give just a few examples.
Even before the outbreak of the gulf war, Canada was helping ensure stability between Iran and Iraq. Between 1988 and 1991, 525 members of the Canadian Forces were deployed as part of the UN Iran-Iraq military observer group. A more significant military contribution would come only months later, when Canada acted with many other nations in a coalition to liberate Kuwait. As part of our contribution, naval and air capabilities, including 24 CF-18s, a field hospital and an infantry unit, were deployed to the Arabian gulf. In all, 6,000 Canadian Forces members took part in operations before, during and after hostilities, operating under the authority of several UN security council resolutions.
But our commitment did not end there because, during the following ten years, Canada put military equipment at the disposal of the UN for the enforcement of the sanctions.
Many Canadian warships have carried out maritime interdiction operations to enforce the UN embargo and force Iraq to respect the resolutions of the UN security council, and this has continued until the present.
During the same period, Canadian Forces specialists participated in the UN special commission charged with the inspection and destruction of Iraq's ballistic missiles as well as its chemical, nuclear and biological facilities, but as we all know this participation was brought to a sudden and unfortunate end when inspectors were forced to leave Iraq in 1998.
In the examples I have referred to today, Canada's first and foremost response was to seek resolution through diplomatic channels. That will continue to be the case. At the same time, it is clear that diplomatic efforts sometimes fail to yield results and military action becomes necessary.
Let no one think that Canada will hesitate to provide military support if the government deems it necessary. Canada is sometimes known as a peaceable kingdom but never as a pacifist kingdom. This has been demonstrated through generations and around the world. From World War I and World War II to Korea and most recently Afghanistan, where we were at one point the fourth largest contributor, we have consistently in our history done our part militarily when necessary in pursuit of democracy and freedom around the world. We will do the same if necessary, as we have done already in the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan.
In the case before us today, Canada has made clear our commitment to search for a diplomatic solution. We call again on the Government of Iraq to live up to its international obligations and allow full and unfettered access by UN inspectors. This has been stated by my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well as by the Prime Minister. But Iraq must know that if it fails to comply there will be serious repercussions. We cannot let this regime flout the will of the international community any longer.
At this point, in case someone asks me a question about it, let me make it clear that Canada has not been asked to participate in any military action against Iraq. Therefore, any discussion of military action would be premature at this stage. Only by forcing the Iraqi government to allow full and unfettered access by weapons inspectors can we be sure that it will not be able to possess and use weapons of mass destruction against its own people, its neighbours or any other country.