Laurie Hawn

[April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right when she says it was the Liberals who sent us there. It was the Liberals who prosecuted World War II and Korea. That is what we were trying to remind them of in spite of some of their opposition early on when we were trying to bring resolution 4 to the House.

We had to remind them of their own history so that they would in fact do the right thing, which ultimately they did. We applaud them for that, because Liberals and Conservatives together have always done the right thing in history when it comes to international obligations like this.

In terms of being open and transparent, when people do not pay attention, they do not hear what is being said. When we choose not to pay attention, we do not hear the facts. When we choose to ignore the facts that we hear, then we can stand up, say whatever we want and accuse a government or anybody else of not telling us the facts.

We have to listen to actually hear what is going on. Sometimes those members do and sometimes they do not.

[April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the fantasies coming out of the mouth of the member for Kitchener Centre.

Allow me first, though, to say how pleased we are by the initial outcomes of the NATO summit in Bucharest. The commitments made by our allies are good news for Canada and good news for NATO.

More important, though, the additional troops are good news for the people of Afghanistan, who are working hard to rebuild their lives. We will certainly be discussing the specifics of the additional troop commitments with our allies in the coming months.

An enhanced NATO presence will allow the Canadian Forces to consolidate and expand stability and security operations in Kandahar, which will further allow our development and governance efforts to take root. The commitment of additional troops satisfies one of the important conditions set out in the motion adopted by the House to extend our contributions to the United Nations mandated NATO-led mission in Afghanistan.

Another important recommendation put forward by the independent panel on the future of Afghanistan was the requirement for high performance UAV and helicopter capabilities for our troops in Afghanistan. We are well on our way to achieving that goal. We certainly appreciate our allies' efforts to assist with our need for additional helicopters, including the recent announcement by Poland that it will deploy additional helicopters to Afghanistan.

The government continues to demonstrate its commitment to providing our troops with the equipment and protection they need to fulfill their tasks. To that end, we have significantly enhanced our capabilities in the field.

For example, our new route clearance vehicles are reducing the risk of convoy travel. We are also making arrangements to keep the Leopard 2 tanks in theatre until the end of the Canadian mission.

With respect to helicopters and UAVs, we have been working for some time now to procure capabilities for domestic and international operations, including Afghanistan. I can assure members of the House that the government is actively working on accelerating the acquisition process to provide our troops with the equipment they need.

For example, the Department of National Defence has already announced its intention to acquire Chinook helicopters for domestic and overseas operations. This project has been approved by cabinet and it is anticipated that a contract will be awarded this year.

To address our immediate needs, the government is currently exploring a number of options with our allies and industry.

For example, we are looking at the possibility of acquiring Chinooks that are already configured for U.S. army operations in Afghanistan. We are also exploring leasing options with industry and are looking at our existing fleets to determine what might be possible.

Leasing civilian helicopters is also common practice in Afghanistan. Private companies are already providing this service to the UN, the Afghan government and some of our NATO allies for operations in lower risk areas.

With respect to UAVs, we are currently working with our colleagues at Public Works and Government Services Canada on a number of options to provide our troops with high performance UAVs as soon as possible.

In fact, we have a three year project called Noctua, aimed at leasing high performance, long endurance UAVs capable of intelligence gathering throughout the Canadian Forces' area of operations in Afghanistan. This project will be a substantial improvement over what we currently have in theatre and is expected to be operational in theatre by February 2009.

A letter of interest to industry has already been posted on the Internet and it is anticipated that a request for proposal will be released very soon.

Our government is also working on the purchase of long-range UAV systems for domestic and international operations, including maritime and Arctic surveillance. We are working to deliver these capabilities as quickly as possible in order to meet the safety and security requirements of our troops and are confident that we can deliver these capabilities by February 2009.

These initiatives highlight our commitment to rebuilding the Canadian Forces and ensuring the safety of our men and women in Afghanistan.

After decades of darkness, some of which I lived through, I can tell members that the men and women of the Canadian Forces are not confused at all about what we are doing in Afghanistan. They are not confused at all about what the government is doing for them. We are going to continue to get the job done, with or without the help of the opposition.

[Afghanistan, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his strong support of the Canadian Forces. We are very pleased that our American and French allies have stepped up. Canada made the request to NATO. Our allies listened to us and have responded. It is a tribute to the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The House recently passed a motion calling for this kind of support from NATO. That support has now been delivered. That check is in the box. There are a couple of other requirements that we are looking for. We are making great progress in that area. We will get that job done as well, as we always do.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2008, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest and there are so many points to address, but I will only do a couple.

While my hon. colleague over there can wallow in delusions of relevancy, however, he fails to make the connection between wealth creation and social programs as does the class warfare party across the chamber from him.

I will give him a couple of points to chew on. He slags helping business to make profits. I point out that 16% of manufacturing jobs in the province of Ontario are directly linked to the oil patch in Alberta. I am not sure what the number is for Quebec but it is a significant number as well. Forty per cent of the contracts in the oil patch come to the province of Ontario, and another significant percentage to the province of Quebec.

How many jobs does that create? How much income tax does that generate? How much money to fund social programs does that generate in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, and the rest of Canada? It is very significant.

When Quebec pension funds are invested or teachers' pension funds are invested or union pension funds are invested, where are they invested? I think the member should check to see where they are. I think he will find that a very significant portion of those pension funds are invested in things like the oil patch in Alberta.

Therefore, when the member slags those kinds of things, I think he is really slagging his own province and he should probably wake up and smell the coffee in Canada, and see who is really supporting it. It is not just Alberta. It is all of Canada. It is all benefiting Quebec as it is benefiting the rest of Canada.

[Communications Security Establishment, April 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the security of Canadians is paramount to this government, and CSEC is another tool the government employs to ensure that. CSEC directs its intelligence activities at foreign targets located outside Canada and is prohibited by the National Defence Act from targeting communications of Canadians. Section 273 of the act requires the authorization of the Minister of National Defence to intercept communications of foreign targets outside Canada, even if those communications originate or terminate in Canada.

I would also like to point out that the CSE commissioner, former Supreme Court Justice Gonthier, has confirmed the lawfulness of the CSEC activities review.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow-up on that last question with my hon. colleague. Ever since the Conservative Party has been in government, we have frankly been committed to working with Quebec in many ways. We recognize Quebeckers and Quebec for the great strengths they bring to Canada.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could comment on the vitality of Quebec's culture and the ways that our government has fulfilled its commitment to Quebec.

[Afghanistan, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and take this moment to wish her a happy birthday, at the risk of adding good news.

We have been straight with Canadians all along. That is why we commissioned the Manley study to come up with some guidance to show the way ahead. That is what we are following.

The Prime Minister is in Bucharest right now, along with the Minister of National Defence. The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be joining them shortly and we are going to get the job done. We are in close contact with our allies all the time. We are united on this and we are going to get the job done.

[Afghanistan, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made it very clear in the House yesterday when he answered a similar question. In fact, we are encouraged by the confidence our allies have shown in supporting our objectives in the mission in Afghanistan. We continue to talk to our allies at all levels: military, civilian and political. We expect to announce some progress on this by the end of the NATO summit.

Whether it will be the final announcement or not, I do not know, but this is in accordance with the mission in Afghanistan as laid out. It is in accordance with the Manley report. It is in accordance with the motion passed by this House.

We are going to get the job done, as usual.

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is hard to follow. On the one hand, the NDP members describe themselves as advocates for the official languages, but on the other hand, in 2007, they voted against the $30 million increase over two years for official language minority communities and linguistic duality. They also voted against budget 2008, which includes a follow-up to the official languages action plan and follows on Bernard Lord's recommendations regarding government consultations over linguistic duality. They also said that they wanted any bill affecting the Official Languages Act submitted to a committee.

How can they explain this two-faced position?

[Business of Supply, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I did enjoy my colleague's comments. It is clear that the Liberal Party members understand the negative effects this motion would have, as we do, and they clearly understand what it means to be truly a federal party, as we do on this side.

I think they would acknowledge the fact that the Bloc Québécois is far from being a party that has accomplished anything of value for Canada or in fact Quebec.

I would like the member to acknowledge that he misspoke in referring to the motion of November 2006. It did not talk about Quebec as a nation within a united Canada, it talked about the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada, not Quebec. I would like him to clarify that.

Also, could he explain to the House again, especially for the Bloc Québécois, the negative effects this action would have on Canada and everything we stand for?