Peter MacKay

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I want to set the record straight on this. The deadline to file applications was April 1, 2009. As of May 21, 2010, approximately 2,800 applicants have already received this tax-free, ex gratia payment and more than $79 million were paid out to veterans and their families.

I do not at all doubt the sincerity of the hon. member's question but I do remind her that she was a member of a government for 13 years that did nothing on this file. It did not answer the concerns of veterans and their families. I would put the question back to her. Why did she not express the same empathy and the same sincere conviction that she expresses today to members of her own government and her prime minister who did nothing on this file?

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, this is an issue with which I am familiar and, more important, I am very proud that it was our government, under the leadership of the hon. Greg Thompson, the former Minister of Veterans Affairs and a serving member from New Brunswick, who announced that we were offering a one-time, tax-free, ex gratia payment of $20,000 related to the testing of unregistered U.S. military herbicide, which, as she said, is known as agent orange. It was used on the base at CFB Gagetown from 1966 to 1967.

I had the honour to meet a number of these veterans and I know what an impact it had on their lives, their health and their well-being. We believe our government has been fair in compensating the request and the response to these long-standing concerns and we are very proud of this program that has—

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, let us set the record straight here. Afghanistan is a UN mission. It has a Security Council resolution. Without going into specifics of the other countries he has mentioned, I can assure him that Canada is one of a small number when it comes to the high tempo of military combat activity. There are a lot of NATO countries and non-NATO countries that are present in Afghanistan, both in smaller and in some cases larger numbers, but they are not performing the full range of uncaveated military combat that the Canadian Forces are.

We are involved in 16 different UN missions around the globe. Afghanistan--

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, there is great rigour and vigour being demonstrated by our civilians, our diplomats and our aid workers working shoulder to shoulder with the Canadian Forces. This is a whole of government approach, as the hon. member knows, but the lead and the point to these efforts in reconciliation, in discussion and dialogue with those on the other side, who are very often difficult to identify, I am quick to add, that priority rests with the Afghanistan government and the Afghanistan people.

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, much of that is determined by the Afghan government, as the member I know would understand. This is something in which we are in a supportive capacity. We give advice to various government departments in Afghanistan. We are obviously very committed to working with them. Efforts to reconcile, efforts to bring about fruitful discussions by the Afghanistan government are extremely important and part of Canada's overall commitment and one of our six priorities.

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I also thank the hon. member for his preamble and assure him that the families are listening. The families do appreciate the expressions of support, particularly, I would add, the family of Trooper Larry Rudd, who was received at CFB Trenton today. His mother, Helen, his grandmother and many of his friends were on hand to see him repatriated and we are all very much in awe and very much full of respect, love and admiration for Trooper Rudd and his family.

With respect to his specific question, I can assure him that the Canadian Forces are very much a part of the effort when it comes to efforts made to reconcile and efforts made to pursue our diplomatic efforts. We have in fact a surge of civilians as part of our effort in Afghanistan and it is one of the six priorities identified by the Canadian government in Afghanistan. So it is an Afghan lead and something we very much support.

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I think there is some confusion. I would just simply indicate to the member that the first transfer payment variance that we spoke of, the $40 million increase, is a contribution to the NATO military budget, and there is a swap, if you will. The transfer is explained by the renewal of terms and conditions for the NATO contribution program, which was approved in October of 2009, to better reflect the current reality of the operations and the management of the airborne warning and control system, or AWACS as it is known, and it is effective 2010-11. This operating portion of the AWACS program was transferred from one budget to the military budget. Hence, there is a difference or a discrepancy that he has identified.

I would indicate that—

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, part of it again is because we are more active in NATO operations than we have been in the past. We have taken certain allocations that were requested of us by NATO with respect to a certain commitment that we made to support a system called the AGS. This is a particularly expensive piece of equipment that we have committed to support. It is the type of equipment that allows greater information gathering. It is also something that we feel is very important to support as part of Canada's overall commitment to NATO.

There were moneys allocated this year that were transferred as payment variance from the 2009-10 budget as part of the main estimates. This $40 million increase the member refers to is a contribution to the overall NATO military budget, and—

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, these are overall budget numbers, to be clear. As I said, I will undertake to get him the specific allocation for reservists each year. He wants, I believe, the allocations for the past year and the current year. The figures that I gave refer to the overall budget allocations for reserve and regular force this year. They are up in all three forces: the army, navy, and air force.

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

I will provide the member with some of that information now, Mr. Chair.

The overall adjustments I can tell him are up for the army, air force and navy. They are up for the air force by $400 million; they have gone up this year for the army by $1.6 billion; and by $209 million for the navy.

With respect to the overall budget for reservists with the individual breakdown or more specific information, I will undertake to provide the member with that.

However, the member is absolutely right. There are ongoing changes based on need. This is a particularly high tempo period for the Canadian Forces. We have a lot of reservists who have been part of the rotations that have gone into Afghanistan, and sometimes they amount to in excess of 20% of the overall force.

I was reminded by a reservist that when they are there serving, there is no hat badge. They are all treated the same. Regular forces and reservists are absolutely treated the same while serving on a mission.