Laurie Hawn

[National Peacekeepers' Day Act, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the issue raised by this private member's bill proposing the establishment of a national peacekeepers' day in Canada. This private member's bill is very sincere and well intentioned but I would, however, like to add some perspective that I feel qualified to offer.

Fifty years ago, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal Company and that event gave rise to armed conflict with Egypt on one side and Israel, Britain and France on the other. Eighteen hundred and fifty-three lives were lost. British prime minister, Anthony Eden, was forced to resign and the British, French and Israeli forces withdrew in March 1957.

However, before the withdrawal, Lester Pearson, Canada's acting cabinet minister for external affairs, went to the United Nations and suggested creating a United Nations emergency force in the Suez. The United Nations accepted his suggestion and, after several days of tense diplomacy, a neutral force was sent, with the consent of Egyptian President Nasser, stabilizing conditions in the area.

Lester Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Price in 1957 for his efforts. The United Nations peacekeeping force was Lester Pearson's creation and he is considered the father of the modern concept of peacekeeping. Since that time, Canada has lost close 115 personnel on what have been called peacekeeping missions.

In a speech in Edmonton recently, Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, Chief of the Land Staff, recalled wryly that it was hard to classify the operations in Croatia and Bosnia as peacekeeping when artillery rounds were routinely whistling overhead. The name that we give to operations in no way changes the sacrifice that Canadian Forces personnel and their families have made in their conduct of those operations.

Over the past 50 years, many Canadians have become accustomed to the idea that we are a nation of peacekeepers despite the fact that our soldiers have been assigned mainly to missions other than those carried out by the UN blue berets.

Canada is one of the major military forces in the world for some good and some not so good reasons. The Canadian Forces act as instruments of peace every day. Whether in the First World War, the Second World War, Korea, Suez, Cypress, the Balkans, the first Gulf war, Afghanistan, various missions in the Middle East, roles within NORAD and NATO for about 50 years, and many other missions too numerous to mention, the Canadian Forces have contributed to peace and security.

Although I do not wear any of the traditional peacekeeping medals, I flew thousands of hours of peacekeeping missions in the CF-104 Starfighter and the CF-18 Hornet in North America and Europe. I spent thousands of hours as a flying instructor teaching others to carry out those missions. My flying helmet was not blue but that did not detract from the ultimate objective of every mission that I flew.

Several times during the first hour and a half or so of debate on this bill, the tragic and criminal incident of the shooting down of a Canadian Forces Buffalo aircraft by a Syrian surface to air missile on August 9, 1974, was cited. Nine Canadians were killed during this routine supply mission to Egypt. The Syrians maintained that the attack was an accident but no one bought that story.

I recall very clearly when I heard the news that day. I was driving southbound on the autobahn in Germany between our bases of Baden Soellingen and Lahr. One of the names that was released was Captain Keith Mirau. Keith and I had been flying instructors together at Gimli, Manitoba on our previous tours. The loss of Captain Mirau and his eight crew members was mourned appropriately.

During and since my career in the air force, I have attended many dozens of funerals mourning the loss of friends and acquaintances who have died in the line of duty in the uniform of the Canadian Forces.

Every one of those losses was tragic, and the families did not distinguish between deaths caused by a CF-18 crashing in Cold Lake, a diving accident near Esquimalt, a submarine fire in the middle of the ocean, a sniper in Cyprus or Bosnia, a vehicle rollover in Wainwright, a gunshot in the Middle East or fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Every member of the Canadian Forces who died in the line of duty represents a sacrifice in the name of peace, and they are all worthy of the title “peacekeepers”.

The hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore wrote in the February 2003 edition of Policy Options that the traditional, almost quaint, notion of Pearsonian peacekeeping is dead. He contended that Canada has not adjusted well to the realities of what has been called peace enforcement. He said, “We not only don't contribute enough to peacekeeping, we are not training to do the right kind of peacekeeping, which is combat-capable peace enforcement in zones of conflict, like Afghanistan and the Balkans”.

Retired Major General Lewis Mackenzie has argued that the inability of the UN to prevent human slaughter in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda would have been solved by firmer military force. He wrote last year that the Canadian Forces needed to adapt by being “light, lethal, strategically mobile and sustainable”.

What I am trying to say is that there is a very large grey area between what Canadians have been led to think of as peacekeeping and our military's other activities, including wartime combat.

Like many other countries, Canada sets aside one day to remember Canadians in uniform who gave their lives in the name of freedom, regardless of how they made that sacrifice. That day is Remembrance Day, and we celebrate it every November 11.

We all spent time in our ridings recently commemorating the courage and sacrifice of Canadian men and women in the cause of peace. Remembrance Day has had more meaning for Canadians in recent years but, as always, the sacrifice to which we pay homage was not in the cause of war but in the cause of peace. Canada has lost over 116,000 courageous men and women in uniform in the cause of peace since 1914.

The Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association is an organization that promotes Canada's history in United Nations peacekeeping operations. Their members have a right to be very proud of their contributions to peace. On their website, the new Book of Remembrance will contain the names of members of the Canadian Forces who died as a result of duty either overseas, outside of or in Canada. To date the criteria is:

In addition to those who died from causes related to service in a “Special Duty Area”, the Book will contain the names of all those whose deaths resulted from injury or disease or aggravation thereof that arose out of or was directly connected with military service in other than a “Special Duty Area”.

The Canadian Peacekeeping Veterans Association clearly recognizes the equivalence of the sacrifices made by all Canadians in uniform, no matter their mission.

August 9 is already designated and celebrated as Peacekeeping Day. In my view and in the view of virtually every serving and retired military member whom I have canvassed, that is appropriate. Any additional recognition, such as lowering the flag on the Peace Tower or declaring a national holiday, would dilute the significance of November 11.

Allow me to quote a few of the many responses I have received.

A retired colonel and member of UN peacekeeping missions said:

With the advent of the Seventh Book of Remembrance, peacekeepers are now recognized in the Peace Tower and, in my view fall into the same category as wartime fatalities—they died in military service to Canada. Almost all of our provinces now recognize the 9th of August as Peacekeeper's Day. I equate this to the Battle of the Atlantic Day and the Battle of Britain Day ceremonies—celebrated to show respect, concern, admiration and remembrance but being neither a national holiday nor an event requiring the lowering of the Peace Tower flag.

A retired colonel and World War II fighter pilot said:

My view is that a proper recognition of our annual Remembrance Day on November 11th is exactly what we need, exactly what all our generations need as a tribute to the fallen, and those who served our country. I do not favour a special “Peacekeepers Day”.

A retired lieutenant-colonel and fighter squadron commander said:

The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month would seem to me to recognize those who were successful at establishing peace and maintaining the peace or gave their lives in the attempt.

A retired general and former chief of the defence staff said:

I for one believe that we should keep November 11 as our ONLY military day of recognition...where all present, past, living, dead military folks who have and are contributing to our security are honoured and recognized. I do not believe we should dilute the importance of this day...to have a Peacekeepers Day is a BAD idea.

I have heard similar comments, all of which echo that idea, from members of the armed forces at all levels.

I know that the intention behind this motion is honourable, and I am certainly not questioning the motives of the hon. member who introduced it.

However, as a veteran and a peacekeeper and representing the virtually unanimous opinions that I have received on this issue, I do not support any initiative that would have the effect of watering down the importance of November 11.

I know there is a desire to have this bill go to committee for study and to hear more indepth discussion on the pros and cons of this initiative. For that reason, I will support it at this time.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rephrase it and ask the same question. The member talked about there being no hidden agenda and the motion being non-partisan. The motion is clearly as partisan as it can get. I was born at night, but it was not last night.

The member said that it is non-partisan and it is only wording, but then she went on to say that clearly Quebec needs to separate in her view. How could anything be more partisan or more contradictory than that, from the comments of her colleague who said that it was just words and it meant nothing. That is baloney. Please clarify your intentions.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec’s intentions are very clear.

My hon. colleague talked about a hidden agenda, that we would be suspicious that the Bloc had a hidden agenda. Who are we trying to kid here? This makes me laugh if it was not such a serious thing for Canada. We talk about partisanship. I am a partisan Canadian, pure and simple, from coast to coast to coast. I am Canadian.

I have spent a lot of time in all parts of Canada. I own a little piece of Quebec. My hon. colleague owns a little piece of Alberta. He can choose to claim that little piece of Alberta if he wishes to or not, but I choose to claim my little piece of Quebec as a Canadian. I will never give up that right.

We will talk about partisanship, but I would like to ask the member a question. How is being a partisan Canadian, if he wants to call me partisan, any different than being as partisan as he is being now as a Quebec sovereignist, a Quebec separatist?

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a Quebecker, but I am proud to be a Canadian who has lived everywhere in Canada. I have spent a great deal of time in Quebec. For 30 years, I was willing to sacrifice my life in the service of the Canadian Forces for all Canadians. This includes Canadians in Quebec. I became attached to Quebec because it is a part of my life and I feel this is a privilege, just as Alberta is part of the Bloc leader's life, if he chooses to enjoy that privilege. I am not prepared to give up this attachment and this privilege in the name of separation, nor will I ever be.

Would my hon. colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie agree that Canada and all parts of Canada are indivisible as part of what makes us all Canadians, and that all Canadians have a right to input on our future together as Canadians from coast to coast to coast?

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague and she loves to sing songs. I will get to that in a second. However, a big part of the downturn in employment in the industry might have something to do with the fact that housing has slowed down considerably and people simply are not buying lumber.

She loves to sing the song about “If I had a billion dollars”. She comes from the “glass 20% empty” club. We, and the Bloc, and I think a lot of other members in the House come from the “glass 80% full” club. So, when she is making up songs, I wonder if she would mind making one up that says something like, “If I had $4 billion what would I do?”

Does the hon. member have any idea what the workers and the companies are doing with the $4 billion that they have now because of the good work of this government?

[Federal Accountability Act, November 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, during the break week, Canada's new government got down to work, rolled up its sleeves, worked constructively with opposition colleagues in the House and rebuilt the federal accountability act back into the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history.

Unlike the Liberal Senate, which took almost six months to bring forward its amendments to the act, Canada's new government only took a week to respond.

The government has indicated that it will reject many of the amendments from the Senate. Could the President of the Treasury Board tell the House why he is rejecting those amendments?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I would like to return to recruitment and retention. Despite numerous recruiting or retention efforts, a number of military occupations remain short of personnel. These include professional occupations, such as doctors and pharmacists, and operating occupations, such as naval electronics, technicians, signal operators, fire control systems technicians, airborne electronics sensor operators, naval weapon technicians and intelligence operators.

Indications are that intake estimates will not be sufficient to recover the above military occupations to the preferred manning level within two years. Recruiting and retention of some of these occupations will remain problematic in the foreseeable future for a variety of reasons, such as elevated academic standards, high medical standards, competition from the private sector and shortages of certain skill sets in Canadian society.

Given that in the fiscal year 2006-07 the Canadian Forces will continue to face challenges in recruiting that may ultimately affect their capacity to meet overall recruiting and forces expansion objectives to grow the regular force by an additional 13,000 and the reserve force by 10,000, would the parliamentary secretary please describe the specific activities currently in progress or planned that would mitigate the recruiting and retention problem?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I can only echo the minister's remarks about the military being a great career. I enjoyed it immensely for 30 years.

I rise today to speak on the 2006-07 main estimates. These estimates reflect many of the important initiatives the government has put forward since it took office a few months ago. Much has been accomplished in that time.

Some 1.4 million families are receiving a universal child care benefit for every child under six. We are also working with partners across the country to find ways to create real, flexible child care spaces. We have also cut the GST by 1%. This has provided real tax relief that is noticeable every time Canadians make a purchase.

The introduction of the federal accountability act was part of our effort to clean up government and politics, so that all Canadians can be proud of their political system. We have increased Canada's involvement in international affairs and promoted Canada's interests in the world. We have taken concrete steps to protect Canada's sovereignty and rebuild the Canadian Forces. The government has a vision for Canada.

We envision a prosperous and secure Canada that is united at home and respected abroad, a country with safe streets and secure borders, a Canada that is a leader rather than a follower on the international stage. Since taking office, we have been working hard to turn that vision into a reality.

Earlier in the debate my hon. colleagues on this side of the House spoke about various initiatives that support the Canadian Forces in their work. They talked about equipment procurement and recruitment, for example. I will focus on the support we are giving to our mission in Afghanistan. Success in operations is the primary goal that drives all the work of the Canadian Forces and when we speak about supporting our Canadian Forces, it means creating the conditions for achieving that success.

This evening, I would like to focus on specific measures adopted by the government to support our mission in Afghanistan. At present, this issue is a priority, and I believe that it is worthwhile taking a closer look.

To successfully carry out their mission, Canadian soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan need more time and more resources. I will talk about two initiatives that we have taken to meet these needs: extending our mission in Afghanistan and reinforcing the Canadian Forces serving in that country.

As my hon. colleagues will recall, on May 17, 2006 this House voted to extend Canada's mission in Afghanistan by 24 months beginning in February 2007. We recognized together that this mission serves the interests of Canada. It ensures that Afghanistan will never again become a haven for international terrorism. In other words, we are there to help protect Canadians from future terrorist threats.

We also acknowledge the value and the importance of contributing to the efforts of our partners and allies. Perhaps most importantly, we are helping the legitimate government of Afghanistan build a secure, stable and prosperous society. Canada is leading NATO and international efforts in Afghanistan and we should all be proud.

We did not extend this mission without an end goal in mind. We have clearly defined what constitutes success in this mission. This two year commitment will help the Afghanistan National Security Forces become operationally effective, so that they can take control of security in their own country. It will facilitate a smooth political transition when the current mandate of Afghanistan's presidency ends in 2009. It will help the government of Afghanistan implement key initiatives set out in the Afghanistan compact in areas such as transitional justice and disarming illegal armed groups.

The reality is that the Canadian Forces operating in that country face considerable dangers. We know that we cannot create a zero risk environment in Afghanistan. The Canadian Forces and their partners from civilian departments and agencies need not only time but also tangible resources to conduct their efforts as safely and effectively as possible.

The government is doing everything it can to minimize risks and to ensure that the Canadian Forces have the resources they need. This requires regular re-evaluation of the conditions on the ground and the tasks at hand.

The Minister of National Defence went to Afghanistan this fall. He talked to the troops, to military commanders, and to Brigadier General David Fraser, then commander of task force Afghanistan. He asked him how we could support them better. Considering the current realities on the ground, Brigadier General Fraser and Lieutenant General Michel Gauthier, Commander of the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, specifically asked both the Minister of National Defence and General Hillier for additional equipment and more personnel.

In addition to an infantry company, the government has enhanced the Canadian Forces task force with a tank squadron and an anti-mortar capability. The provision of these enhancements will protect all Canadians, not just military personnel operating in Afghanistan. It will better enable Canada to meet its reconstruction and stabilization objectives in Afghanistan. It will help the Canadian Forces contribute to the overall success of the mission. The government is committed to achieving success in Afghanistan.

While today's debate is on defence spending, we must not forget that the government is also supporting the efforts of civilian agencies and departments in Afghanistan. This includes the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency. The Canadian Forces are therefore only one part of our integrated approach to rebuilding Afghanistan.

When he visited Afghanistan, the Minister of National Defence was told that additional equipment and more personnel were required by the military to get the job done. We are ensuring that these needs are met.

The government has pledged to remain in Afghanistan until we achieve our final objectives. This is why we committed to extending our mission until 2009 and to giving our troops in Afghanistan the resources they need. These initiatives show that flexibility and planning for contingencies are part of any operation. What the government is doing will allow us to continue playing a leadership role in NATO in international efforts for years to come.

It is about 42 years ago that I joined the Royal Canadian Air Force. I have lived through a couple of revolutions in military affairs in Canada, either directly or indirectly. The first one I lived through directly. Some people have called it the Hellyer revolution and it was a hell of a revolution, but not in the right direction. The second one I am living through indirectly is the Hillier revolution and I like this one a whole lot better.

Starting on January 24, the day after the election, I started meeting airplanes coming back to Edmonton with wounded or people on normal rotation. I want to tell members about two people I have come to know. One I have known since he was a baby and one I have only known since January 24.

On January 24 one of the people on the airbus was a young man named Master Corporal Paul Franklin. He lost both legs above the knee to an explosion in Afghanistan. He was in rough shape on January 24. I have seen him progress over the last eight or nine months. He is now walking on two artificial legs without the aid of a walker. He uses canes. He is shopping for racing legs because he used to run marathons and he intends to run them again. He is an absolute inspiration to anybody in the military and anybody who meets him.

The other young man is Ryan Jurkowski. I have known Ryan since he was a baby. He is the son of a close friend of mine from the air force, retired Brigadier General David Jurkowski. Ryan Jurkowski was with C Company in Afghanistan. It was called Contact C because it was always in contact with the Taliban. He came home with, I do not doubt, some emotional scars. He is an exceptional young man and again represents the very best that Canada has to offer the world, and believe me, the world is grateful for what we have given it.

These are the kind of young men and women that we breed in the Canadian Forces who stand up for Canada around the world.

I want to say something about peacekeeping. We talk about peacekeeping and what Canada used to do, or still does. Every single thing that the Canadian Forces do every single day, in every single mission, and in every single way, is about peace. It is about peacekeeping; it is about peacemaking. It is about whatever word we want to put on the end of peace, but it is about peace and we better not forget that.

I believe this is a historic moment for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. We have energetic leadership, a solid vision for the future, and a government that is dedicated to rebuilding the Canadian Forces. The government is also committed to giving the Canadian Forces the tools they need to achieve success in Afghanistan, and whatever other mission we give them.

I have a couple of questions and I would like to address my questions to the parliamentary secretary.

The first one deals with an area that is very important to any military and that is knowledge management. The professionalism of the Canadian Forces is, in large part, founded on learning and knowledge. The Canadian Defence Academy, the Military and Staff Colleges and the Royal Military College of Canada, all play a critical role in creating and ensuring knowledge in the defence community.

During a time when expansion, regeneration and transformation are posing substantial challenges to military professional development and education, would the parliamentary secretary describe how he intends to augment the education and training capacity of the Canadian Forces in the coming years?

[Canada Elections Act, November 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the previous question, although it is very important and I can speak with considerable insight into that issue from my own past experience, is not part of this bill.

My hon. colleague commented earlier that she thinks a constitutional amendment would be required for this bill to work. I am curious about what leads her to draw that conclusion.

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first, I thank all members for their speeches. All of them have been well-meaning, sincere and so on, regardless from where we come. I acknowledge and thank him for his statement, that there is such good governance in the country. I appreciate that.

One thing he brought up were the volunteers. Does he really think people stop volunteering because there is no organization with people being paid to tell them to volunteer?