Michael Ignatieff

[National Defence, November 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should get out around the country and listen to what Canadians are saying. He should have an open town hall and he should listen because they think this is a $16 billion mistake. Nobody wants to ground the air force. The issue is about getting value for money, getting our priorities straight, digging us out of a $56 billion deficit, attaching our priorities to what matters to Canadians.

We can have a competitive bid, save the money and use it to help families take care of their loved ones. Why not?

[National Defence, November 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we are indeed listening to the aerospace industry. They are saying that there would be more economic and industrial spinoffs with a competitive bidding process.

I have done a lot of town halls this year. The Prime Minister does not hold open town halls, but if he did, he would listen to Canadians. What Canadians are saying is this does not make sense. We cannot persuade a small business person across the country that it makes sense to buy 16 billion dollars' worth of equipment without a competitive bid. We would not run a small business like that, so we cannot run the Department of National Defence that way.

How can the Prime Minister stand and assure business people across the—

[National Defence, November 17th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the F-35 fighter jets, the Conservatives are ignoring the Auditor General's report, they are ignoring the Pentagon, they are ignoring U.S. senators, they are ignoring everyone, especially Canadians who are wondering how the government can buy planes to the tune of $16 billion without a competitive bidding process.

When will the Prime Minister stop ignoring everyone, start listening to Canadians and give us a competitive bidding process for these planes?

[Afghanistan, November 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we called for an open national debate on this question as far back as June. The government spent five years saying nothing about Afghanistan. In fact, the Prime Minister said very clearly he wanted no post-combat mission. Then he changed his mind. Then there were trial balloons. Then ministers were saying one thing, then another. There was a period of frantic improvisation, and three days before Lisbon, presto, we get the details.

Can the Prime Minister explain and justify this process of frantic improvisation in the making of Canada's foreign policy?

[Afghanistan, November 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, 20,000 Canadians served in Afghanistan since 2001; 153 brave soldiers did not survive and their sacrifices must not be in vain. We need to be clear about this new engagement of Canada after 2011.

Can the Prime Minister guarantee that this is not going to involve combat, that it is going to be out of Kandahar and that the training will occur in safe conditions in Kabul?

[Afghanistan, November 16th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, since June, our party has been clear: the combat mission in Afghanistan must end in 2011, and Canada must then engage in a training mission.

We have heard the government's proposal. Can the government and the Prime Minister assure us that Canadian soldiers will not be involved in any combat once the new mission begins and that the training will be done—

[Afghanistan, November 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we have been clear for four or five months now. That is not the issue. The issue is the lack of clarity from that side of the House.

My question is the following: why did the Prime Minister say one thing yesterday in Asia and why is the Minister of Foreign Affairs now saying something else? They cannot skate around the question. They have to be clear.

I will ask the question again: how many trainers will there be, where will they be set up and how much will this cost us?

[Afghanistan, November 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been skating frantically, avoiding questions that Canadians must have the answer to before the government goes to Lisbon on Friday.

How many trainers? Where are they going to be? Are they going to be out of combat? How much is it going to cost? Why is it impossible for the government to give simple answers to clear questions that Canadians need to have answers to before they can approve any mission by the government?

[Afghanistan, November 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, those answers are genuinely absurd. We are five days away from the Lisbon summit and the government is unable to stand in the House and tell us exactly what the post-2011 combat mission looks like.

How can the government explain this silence? How can it explain its improvisation? How can it explain its secrecy? How can it explain its lack of transparency with the Canadian people?

[Afghanistan, November 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for clear answers to detailed questions. For example, how many trainers will there be? Does training exclude combat? Where will the training take place? Will it be within a secure area? Would the trainers be in Kabul?

These are all important details. Canadians cannot be content with the government's vague proposals. They demand clarity. When will the government give us that clarity?