Keith Martin

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the opposition asked what I meant by saying that peacekeeping is war by another name. He answered his own question when he said that if we had a brigade that was not combat capable, it was not going to be “of use” to very many people. That is exactly what I mean. If we are going to have effective peacekeeping soldiers, those soldiers must have the capability of waging a war. If they do not have it and do not need it, that is fine, but we must have that capability as a basic and essential means if they are going to do their jobs under the most difficult circumstances. If they are not necessary, then so be it.

I hope, though, that the member will support the following. This government is currently engaged in an integrated approach toward our security needs. It involves development, it involves diplomacy, it involves defence and it involves trade. It is an integrated approach to deal with the very complex array of threats we have today.

We also have a defence review that is going to be released to the defence committee this fall, so I will ask the member a simple question. Will the hon. member support the government's initiatives in the 3Ds plus trade review? Will he support the defence review? Will he support our introduction of and our commitment to increasing the numbers of troops on the sharp edge by 5,000, including an increase of 3,000 to our reserves?

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, to follow up on the hon. member's comments, I do not know whether he is confusing being a pacifist and being a peacemaker. I will give him two examples. One is the situation in Rwanda, when our heroic General Roméo Dallaire watched in absolute horror as 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered. He could not do anything, for many reasons, one of which was lack of personnel and another being the rules of engagement that he could not intervene.

Let us switch to Sierra Leone and a conflict that took place over 15 years, where a quarter of a million people were murdered. Hundreds of thousands were slaughtered in horrendous ways. They were tortured, raped and maimed and their limbs were chopped off. How was this stopped? The British walked in with 780 troops and started shooting some of the rebels. The result was that the conflict stopped. The people of Sierra Leone have now started to build a peace and are living in relative security. The slaughter of civilians stopped only because 780 British troops went into Sierra Leone and stopped the killing because they used force.

I will ask the member the following simple question. Does he believe that the Canadian military at times will need to use force when diplomacy or other coercive measures have failed, tragically? Are there times when our military will need to use force in order to save innocent civilian lives?

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc for his questions, but I really have to take umbrage at many of his comments.

First, so many people in the province of Quebec have contributed so much for so long to the Canadian Forces and have done honourable work to defend this nation here and abroad. I think he is really remiss in his comments in not acknowledging that fact.

To be a pacifist is all well and true, but the fact of the matter is that the milk of human kindness does not course through a lot of people in this world. It is sad to say that some of those people take actions against individuals, most of whom are civilians, and today more than 90% of the casualties in conflict are innocent men, women and children.

The government is putting an investment into our military. We know that we have some specific needs today. We know we have some critical needs and that is why we are putting 5,000 people on the sharp edge and 3,000 in reserves. We have purchased four new critical pieces of equipment and we are going to do more.

I want to ask my friend the following question. How does he propose that we as a country are going to defend innocent civilians in cases such as what we saw in Rwanda, what happened in Sierra Leone and what took place in Bosnia? How are we going to defend innocent civilians when people who are quite nasty are going to slaughter them? Are we going to ask our troops to sit back and watch? Are we not going to contribute? Or are we going to do the right thing under certain circumstances and be there to defend those people?

At the end of the day, does he or does not agree that peacekeeping is war by another name and we had better outfit our troops to be able to accomplish that objective?

[Supply, October 21st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. I want to reiterate a few facts. The fact is that this government recognizes the new global realities. That is why we have put together a four part, integrated plan, working with development and defence, working with aid and working with foreign affairs, in order to look at our new security challenges in a four part fashion.

Also with respect to the defence department, the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that a review of defence has been taking place. That review to reflect those new realities is going to come out very soon.

The Leader of the Opposition also mentions contributions to our military. He should know full well that we have committed to putting forth 5,000 new people on the sharp edge of our military, plus 3,000 new reserves. We have also contributed $7 billion for new equipment. That is a start, and I submit to members that given our fiscal realities and our fiscal challenges it is a good start.

The Leader of the Opposition wants to put 80,000 people on the sharp edge. I would ask him this. Over what period of time does he want to put those 80,000 people on the sharp edge of our military and what is it going to cost the Canadian taxpayer to do that?

[Navy Appreciation Day, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to rise to pay tribute to our navy, both uniformed and civilian personnel, on this Navy Appreciation Day.

Brave and reliable, our navy personnel react quickly and decisively to our needs, both at home and abroad. They performed superbly during the first gulf war, were quick to respond to the attacks of September 11 and have performed magnificently in the war against terrorism.

In addition, they have the best shipboarding teams in the world. When disaster strikes, our navy plays an essential role in multinational operations and also in providing humanitarian assistance.

May I send a big thanks from Parliament to our navy personnel and their families. They deserve our recognition and profound gratitude for the work they have done and continue to do to make our world a safer place for all.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his maiden speech. He spoke about bringing school kids to the House. Dr. Jane Goodall, the primatologist, was in the audience during question period. I was curious to know what she was thinking while she watched the antics of question period. I wondered whether she found our behaviour better or worse than the chimpanzees she has been studying since 1960 in Gombe, western Tanzania. It is all the opposition's fault. The member should know that.

Medical personnel in rural areas is a huge problem for the whole country. British Columbia has a physicians assistants program. We are now starting to model a very exciting program. The University of Washington in Washington State has an 80% success rate with providing physicians assistants in rural areas. Approximately 80% of its graduates stay in a rural area and they, under the guidance of physicians, are able to provide primary care in underserviced areas. I offer that to the member as a point of interest. If he has any comments to make on the programs that Ontario is doing, which are very good, he might like to mention them in the House.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your post. I also congratulate the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing who does indeed have a gorgeous riding.

He mentioned some excellent points concerning the economics of our country and the fact that we are consistently in a surplus position. He emphasized the fact that among the 26 OECD nations, our government has performed best over the last several years and has consistently put forth a surplus.

Some may be critical of that but I will reiterate the reasons for that. It gives us the stable base upon which we can invest in our communities, support our social programs and pay down the debt. By paying down the debt, we are actually reducing the payments that we have to pay which enables us as a country to have more resources and more money to do the things that we want to do for Canadians.

The hon. member has a massive riding, a good chunk of Canada. A good chunk of my province of British Columbia is rural too. Would he explain for the House some of the innovative economic diversification issues that have been employed in the north? Ontario has been a leader with the federal government in investments in economic development in rural areas. Could he also bring us up to date on some of the challenges and some of the solutions that have been put forth to deal with aboriginal communities which, tragically, are some of the neediest communities and which display some of the lowest socio-economic parameters that we have in our nation?

Could he articulate to the House some of the innovative things that are being done in northern Ontario on both of those issues?

[National Defence, October 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, following the tragedy which occurred with the Chicoutimi , the standard operating procedure is that an inquiry takes place. The people who have the expertise to do that are those who are in the navy. They are the professionals. They are the experts. This government is going to leave that very important investigation to the experts.

[National Defence, October 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the subs were put dockside as a precautionary measure. While we are going through the board of inquiry, the navy thought that it was prudent to keep all the subs in dock. We do not micromanage the navy. The navy makes these operational decisions itself. We leave it up to the professionals.

[National Defence, October 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if there was a potion, I would be happy to share it with the hon. member.

The real issue with the subs and what everybody in the House wants is to get to the bottom of the tragedy of what happened on the Chicoutimi . We are letting the navy do its job. The board of inquiry is doing its job right now. It is in Faslane. It is going through the Chicoutimi from top to bottom and will come out with the answers in the very near future.