Laurie Hawn

[Afghanistan, October 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend should get the mud out of his ears.

I will say it one more time. Canada's combat mission will end in 2011. Please listen up.

[Afghanistan, October 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very precise for my hard of listening friend across the way.

The government has been clear. The House of Commons was clear. The Prime Minister has been clear. The Minister of National Defence has been clear. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has been clear. I have been clear.

Let me be clear one more time. Our combat mission will end in 2011.

[Champions of Mental Health Awards, October 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the seventh annual Champions of Mental Health Awards, which took place on October 7 as part of Mental Illness Awareness Week. These awards celebrated individuals and organizations that have made outstanding contributions to the advancement of mental health issues in Canada.

Lieutenant Colonel Stéphane Grenier, Chief of Defence Staff General Walt Natynczyk and our own Minister of National Defence received awards. I was proud to be with friends and colleagues who recognized the action taken by members of our government and the Canadian Forces. Under their leadership, we are eliminating the negative stigma associated with mental illness and operational stress injuries.

The “Be the Difference” awareness campaign and the operational stress injury social support program show that this government is working with the Canadian Forces to improve the care available to the brave men and women who serve our country. They do so much for Canada and the world that we must do everything we can for them.

Our government continues to invest in this important issue that affects our soldiers, our families, our colleagues and our country.

[Search and Rescue Helicopter, October 8th, 2009]

Canada is an expansive and geographically complex nation, and if members would just listen, it might actually make some sense.

Our search and rescue system is second to none. Nevertheless, our resources are limited. That is the reality. The motion ignores the complex considerations that go into determining the basing and deployment of these finite search and rescue resources.

Let me begin by assuring the House that search and rescue is a priority mission for the Canadian Forces. It is what they call a no fail mission. They are not allowed to fail, and they do not. The crews and equipment are absolutely dedicated to this, and their record stands second to none.

Our men and women in uniform, in cooperation with other government departments, including the RCMP and the Coast Guard, as well as the provinces and territories are on duty 24/7, 365 days a year. I do not think my hon. colleague understands what 24/7 means. It does not mean that there is no response time. It takes time to get into an airplane. It takes time to get there. They are on 30 minute standby during the week. They are on two hour standby on the weekends. That is what 24/7 means.

They are prepared and ready to respond to incidents of distress wherever and whenever they occur in Canada and our territorial waters, and they have saved countless lives. This has not happened by chance.

Canadian Forces search and rescue squadrons have been strategically located throughout the country.

A close look at the historic distribution of distress incidents has enabled us to choose the best locations for our limited resources. Our goal has always been to respond as quickly and effectively as possible to the greatest possible number of search and rescue calls.

Regardless of whether the incident takes place on a mountainside in British Columbia or on the blustery sea off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, trained men and women equipped for search and rescue are ready to help. To cover Newfoundland and Labrador, we have stationed Cormorant search and rescue helicopters in Gander.

Why not St. John's, the airport nearest the offshore oil activity in Newfoundland and Labrador? Because Gander offers optimal coverage to the demands of the entire region, not just the demands of the offshore petroleum industry.

Two separate studies, one in 2003 and another in 2005, support the decision to locate our search and rescue assets at Gander; studies, by the way, carried out by the former government. Yes, the positioning of Canadian Forces helicopters at St. John's may improve the Canadian Forces response time for a subset of incidents occurring near or en route to the oil fields, but doing so would result in slower response times to incidents in other parts of the region.

Today's motion proposes an overly simplified solution to a complex problem. Search and rescue operations are often very complex, demanding excellent coordination of land, air and sea resources. There is more to it than just deploying a Canadian Forces search and rescue helicopter to St. John's.

What if the machine needs maintenance or its crew needs training or even just a little rest?

The Gander search and rescue squadron has specialized search and rescue helicopters, crew and infrastructure, as well as sufficient base workers and maintenance staff to ensure that there is always at least one helicopter ready to respond immediately.

Furthermore, we cannot simply relocate a resource as important as a helicopter without considering how other resources will be used. If we try to put the pieces of such a complex puzzle together from scratch, some areas may well be left out.

Where would she take the resources from and who would she deem to be unworthy of SAR coverage?

She talks about additional resources and that is a fair suggestion; however, to duplicate what we have in Gander and St. John's requires three Cormorant helicopters, six and a half aircrew, fifty-three Canadian Forces personnel for flying and maintaining the airplanes and the administration, thirty-five contract maintenance personnel, infrastructure including a hangar, several years to establish, and approximately $2 billion over twenty years for all of that to happen.

She says money is not a factor. The reality is that money is a factor.

There are also other elements at play here and the weather is a big one. Critical weather conditions tend to occur more frequently in St. John's. A 2003 study conducted by Defence Research and Development Canada by the previous government examined weather conditions in the years 1995 through 1999. It found that in Gander, the weather would have adversely affected Cormorant operations about 7% of the time, but in St. John's that number jumped to 17%. That means a much higher likelihood that Cormorants could not take off from St. John's than Gander.

There are three times as many fog days in St. John's than there are in Gander. It does not matter how close the aircraft is based to potential distress locations if the weather keeps it on the ground.

I want to emphasize once more that a great deal of effort, study and consideration goes into a decision on where to base our assets and no decision is taken in isolation.

In 1986 the royal commission on the tragic Ocean Ranger marine disaster recommended that either government or industry maintain a full-time helicopter for the purposes of search and rescue at the airport nearest offshore drilling operations.

In keeping with that recommendation and in compliance with the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board safety guidelines, the offshore oil industry in Newfoundland and Labrador currently has a contract with Cougar Helicopters. This company, which has experience from a reputable core of former Canadian Forces SAR personnel, provides a first-response helicopter and crew to support offshore oil industry operations based out of St. John's 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Further, an informal arrangement exists between the Canadian Forces and Cougar Helicopters to assist in responding to emergencies. In fact, following a March 12 crash of one of its own helicopters, Cougar Helicopters was among the first responders. It was their response helicopter that rescued the sole survivor in what was deemed to be a non-survivable impact. Arguably, they were in a position to rescue more had this tragic incident yielded more survivors.

I submit that this is exactly what was intended by the royal commission recommendation.

The Canadian Forces response included an Aurora aircraft that happened to be on nearby patrol, followed by Canadian Forces SAR assets including a Hercules aircraft and Cormorant helicopter. There was no delay in response to this tragic accident and there was nothing more that anyone could have done to alter its unfortunate outcome. Indeed, this is a good example of how the Canadian Forces works closely with its search and rescue partners from both government and industry to ensure the most effective and efficient search and rescue service to Canadians across the country.

In effect, the intent of this motion has already been satisfied for over two decades.

The logic here is really straightforward. Our goal is to provide Canadians with an effective search and rescue system. Resources are finite and the territory it must serve is immense. This is not an easy challenge to contend with, so we have strategically placed our assets according to the historical distribution of incidents across the country.

There are several aspects of Atlantic Canada's geography, its climate and the increased risk of incidents related to resource extraction that make this challenge even more daunting. The situation in Atlantic Canada has been extensively studied. These studies have concluded that Gander is the optimal base from which the CF can respond to all of the search and rescue demands in that region, not simply demands related to the offshore petroleum industry.

For three reasons we cannot support this understandably emotional but impractical and unnecessary motion: the best use of finite resources; the incredibly high cost, which is reality and still a factor; and the fact that we are already covering a requirement for the offshore oil industry, and have been doing so under the terms of the report that came out over two decades ago.

This government does care, obviously, about the welfare of all Canadians. The Canadian Forces search and rescue assets, the search and rescue people and equipment, do a tremendous job for Canadians and for other non-Canadians who are in our waters and on land.

However, for the reasons I have outlined, we simply must oppose this motion.

[Search and Rescue Helicopter, October 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very serious matter, and I do appreciate the member's sincerity and emotion, but I cannot support the motion.

[Search and Rescue Helicopter, October 8th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague and the obvious sincerity behind them. She said that cost is not an object, but the reality is that costs need to be factored in. I am wondering if she has costed out the bill for equipment and people that it would take to do that.

Is she aware of the service provided by Cougar Helicopters in St. John's? Is she aware of the assessment of the investigation boards that said that the crash of that helicopter was non-survivable in the first place and that it would not have mattered even if there had been aircraft overhead?

[October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I will continue to disagree. She will not believe me, but maybe she will believe the hon. Mr. Justice Harrington. This was part of his decision. He said:

Although the Attorney General's position may be somewhat overstated, and although the detention of insurgents in Afghanistan and their subsequent release to the Afghan authorities may possibly be described as policing duties or functions which were performed by members of the Military Police in Afghanistan as pertaining to the arrest or custody of persons, those duties or functions, policing or not, relate to military operations that resulted from established military custom or practice and, therefore, are beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission.

He further stated:

However, as the National Defence Act makes clear, the Commission is limited to considering the conduct of members of the Military Police in the performance of their policing duties or functions. It has no jurisdiction to inquire into the conduct of the military at large, much less the conduct of persons who are not members of the military.

We are conducting this in accordance with the rule of law and in the best interests of Canadians.

[October 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have another chance to clarify the record on this particular issue.

I would like to begin by reminding my hon. colleague that the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that prisoners are treated and transferred in accordance with our obligations under international law. In fact, a board of inquiry was convened by the Canadian Forces to investigate the treatment and processing of persons detained by the CF in April 2006, as well as to conduct a detailed examination of the orders, directives and procedures governing prisoner treatment at the time.

The board concluded that Canadian Forces members, without exception, treated prisoners professionally and humanely, and that all actions taken by CF members in dealing with prisoners complied with direction in place at the time of capture and were consistently above reproach.

The board did identify a number of areas for improvement and over the course of the board's deliberations, the majority of these shortcomings were rectified through the Canadian Forces' regular review of operations. With respect to the MPCC, the Government of Canada remains committed to cooperating with the commission in the conduct of its investigations to the fullest extent possible, consistent with the mandate given the MPCC by the National Defence Act.

As the MPCC itself has confirmed, the Department of National Defence has provided the commission with access to hundreds of documents and produced dozens of witnesses with respect to the MPCC matters relating to prisoners. However, it is important to remember that there is a mandatory obligation for public officials and participants to take appropriate steps under section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act to protect information that is potentially sensitive or injurious within the meaning of section 38 of the act.

The inadvertent release of this type of information in the MPCC's proceedings is a serious matter and could endanger the lives of civilians and members of the Canadian Forces serving in Afghanistan. The Government of Canada, therefore, continues to take reasonable precautions to prevent this from happening. Since February 2008 the Government of Canada has sought dialogue with the MPCC to the most effective means of dealing with this issue, initially in relation to the investigation of the complaints and later in advance of the commencement of the hearings.

With respect to individual witnesses, none have been prohibited from testifying. The MPCC list of witnesses was compiled before the Federal Court ruled in favour of the government's application to limit the scope of its investigation to matters of policing. Witnesses can testify as long as the MPCC establishes that the testimony is relevant. Government officials are required by law to protect sensitive information relating to international relations, national defence or national security, whether in written or oral form.

There are some matters that witnesses will not be able to speak to if they do appear because they are subject to legal protection or because their disclosure may have an adverse effect on national security or other matters contemplated under the Canada Evidence Act. Department of Justice lawyers continue to be prepared to work with the MPCC to find a way to proceed with the upcoming public interest hearing while protecting sensitive information.

I can assure my hon. colleagues that the Government of Canada will continue to cooperate with the MPCC in the conduct of its investigations to the fullest extent possible, consistent with the mandate given to the MPCC by the National Defence Act and, as explained, by the Federal Court of Canada.

We will continue, as we have done from the beginning, to operate under the rule of law. Perhaps that may not satisfy my hon. colleague, which would surprise me, given that she is a lawyer. However, that is how we are operating and we will continue to do that.

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to thank my colleague from Toronto Centre for an excellent intervention.

I have two quick questions. One is philosophical and one is a little more specific.

We talk about progress or no progress; the glass is half full or the glass is half empty. Would he agree that the glass is at least fuller than it was when we started? Anybody can decide what that means, but is it at least fuller?

Now, I have a more specific question. General McChrystal in his recent well-publicized report basically said that we should be putting more forces on the ground, concentrating on stabilizing an area and then staying there. That is precisely what the Canadian Forces have been doing now for a number of months. What is the hon. member's view on General McChrystal's strategy and the fact that we have in fact been doing that ourselves and perhaps leading the way again?

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get my colleague's comments on reconciliation.

Our NDP colleague across the floor said there can be no reconciliation during conflict, and I frankly reject that. Even in a conventional war, like World War II, behind the scenes activity was going on, perhaps not with Adolf Hitler but with others, that could be called reconciliation. This is not a conventional war, obviously. The reconciliation that went on all through the conflict in northern Ireland was part of ending that conflict.

I would like my colleague's comments on that. Can reconciliation be part of any conflict? It does not necessarily have to follow after the conflict has ended.